IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 298 of 2011 Kurban S/O Khalil and another. … Appellants. Versus National Insurance Company Limited and two others. … Respondents. Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. D.S.Patni, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Date July 28, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Delay Condonation Application No. 7660 of 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Grounds are sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) is directed against the impugned award dated 5-2-2011 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 126 of 2009 Anwari and others Vs. Sabir and two others, whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Haridwar (for short the Tribunal) has awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,41,500/- to the claimant-appellants along with interest @ 6% per annum as mentioned in the award. The appellants are aggrieved by that part of the order whereby the learned Tribunal has directed that 50% amount of the compensation payable to the claimant nos. 4 and 5- who are appellants herein has been ordered to be kept in three year term deposit in some nationalized Bank. 2 Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this appeal, there is no need to summon the lower court record because the question to be decided in appeal is legal in nature. The grievance of the appellants is that they are the father and mother of the deceased. In the claim petition itself Kurban, father of the deceased, has been shown to be aged 52 years and Shakila, the mother of the deceased, who are claimant nos. 4 and 5 to the claim petition are major. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a manifest error of law in not following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas (MRS) and others [(1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 176]. The argument of the learned counsel is that the learned Tribunal without recording a finding that the appellants herein are semi-literate or illiterate ought not to have directed that 50% amount of their share be kept in the term deposit scheme and to that extent, the impugned award is liable to be modified. I have perused the impugned award. In the operative portion of the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has imposed a condition that 50% of the amount payable to the claimant nos. 4 and 5-appellants herein be kept in term deposit scheme for three years each and rest 50% be paid to them in cash through Cheques. No such finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that the claimant nos. 4 and 5-appellants herein are illiterate or semi-literate persons. In view of the law laid down in paragraph no 22 in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas (MRS) and others (supra), since there is no finding on the point of literacy of the appellants and as the claimant-appellants herein are major, it would 3 be in the fitness of things that the their share in the compensation be paid to them in cash through Cheques. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Costs easy. The impugned award dated 5-2-2011 passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to this extent alone that the appellants herein, who are claimant nos. 4 and 5 in the claim petition, shall be entitled to receive the amount of their share in the compensation in cash through Cheques. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP