FAO No. 1572 of 2011 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 1572 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.2.2011 Kaari Devi and others ... Appellants vs The Union of India and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Ms. Anamika Mehra, Advocate, for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 31.12.2008 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby the amount of compensation of the share of the appellant has been ordered to be deposited in a bank in FDR. Along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 629 days has also been filed. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay in disposal of the present appeal and otherwise also no relief has been claimed against the respondents. Delay in the present case is not material because substantive rights of the parties are not affected and the only relief claimed in the present appeal is for release of the share of appellant no. 1 deposited in the FDR. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellant no. 1 is the widow of the deceased. She has to look after her minor children. There is no other earning hand to support the aggrieved family. The Commissioner has ordered for deposit of the compensation amount to the share of appellant no. 1 in the bank. The order of deposit of her share of compensation in bank is illegal in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in H. S. Ahammed Hussain vs Irfan Ahammed, 2002(3) RCR (Civil) 563 and this Court in FAO No. 1262 of 2010—Rameshwar Lal and others vs Union of India, decided on 11.5.2010, wherein it has been opined that the amount payable to an adult cannot be directed to be kept in a fixed deposit. FAO No. 1572 of 2011 -2- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper- book. Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation coming to the share of appellant no. 1, who is major, shall be paid to her in cash at her option instead of keeping the same deposited in the bank. No other point was raised by learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 11.2.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge