Internal bank rules cannot override judicial directions to maintain and periodically renew minor compensation deposits.

The petitioner’s father died in a motor accident in 1991

In 1994, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation, directing the petitioner’s share to be kept in a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) until she attained majority

An FDR was created in 1995 for a term of only two years, maturing in 1997

Following maturity, the FDR was neither renewed by the Tribunal nor the Bank, and the funds were transferred to an "overdue category account" which earned no interest

Upon attaining majority, the petitioner discovered she had been deprived of interest for over a decade

On 04.09.2013, the MACT rejected her application for the payment of due interest, leading to the present writ petition

The Court primarily applied the protective principles governing compensation for minors under the Motor Vehicles Act, as established by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas (1994) and A.V. Padma v. R. Venugopal (2012)

These precedents mandate that compensation awarded to minors must be adequately safeguarded and periodically renewed to ensure maximum benefit

Furthermore, the court applied the principle that judicial awards take precedence over internal administrative circulars or banking guidelines

The Court observed that the deposit was not a commercial transaction but a court-directed statutory award intended to benefit a minor

The initial preparation of a two-year FDR, despite a judicial mandate to secure the funds until majority, was a threshold failure of the Tribunal’s instructions

Because the FDR remained in the physical custody of the Tribunal, the minor petitioner had no means to monitor or renew the deposit

The Court rejected the Bank’s reliance on internal circulars from 2011 to justify the non-payment of interest, holding that such administrative instructions cannot operate retrospectively to defeat a 1994 judicial award

The Court identified a "systemic failure" involving both the Tribunal's administrative machinery (the Nazir) and the Bank, concluding that the petitioner cannot be penalized for the gross negligence of these institutions

It held that the liability to compensate the petitioner was joint and several upon the respondents

The Court directed the respondent Bank to recalculate the amount by treating the original deposit as if it had been continuously and regularly renewed at prevailing term deposit rates from 17.08.1995 to 08.05.2013

After adjusting for the amount already paid, the balance is to be paid within two months, carrying an additional 10% interest per annum from the date of judgment until actual payment