1 2025:CGHC:32688 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 374 of 2023 1 - Anita Kanwar W/o Late Dilip Kanwar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Belgaon, Tahsil And Thana Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ....................... . Applicant 2 - Hitesh Kanwar S/o Late Dilip Kanwar Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Anita Kanwar, Aged About 30 Years, W/o Late Dilip Kanwar, R/o Village Belgaon, Tahsil And Thana Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 3 - Vedika D/o Late Dilip Kanwar Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Anita Kanwar, Aged About 30 Years W/o Late Dilip Kanwar, R/o Village Belgaon, Tahsil And Thana Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 4 - Nokita D/o Late Dilip Kanwar Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Anita Kanwar, Aged About 30 Years W/o Late Dilip Kanwar, R/o Village Belgaon, Tahsil And Thana Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 5 - Ganpat Kanwar S/o Late Hirasingh Kanwar Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Belgaon, Tahsil And Thana Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 6 - Sumrat Bai W/o Ganpat Kanwar Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Belgaon, Tahsil And Thana Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Jitendra Kumar S/o Tilok R/o Village Behrampur, Thema, District Khargon M.P. ..................... Non - Applicant 2 - Santosh Kumar Yadav S/o Ramlal Yadav R/o Behrampur, Tahsil Gogavo, District Khargon M.P. 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Kamtee Line, Rajnandgaon Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 14-07-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioners have sought following reliefs:- 1. Set aside the order dated 25/2/2023 passed by the Learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rajnandgaon Claim Motor Vehicle Case 29/2023 and further please to direct for release of amount in favour of the petitioners as per apportionment. 2. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit be granted and the cost of the petitioner may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on account of death of petitioner No. 1, Claim Case No. 08/2022 was instituted by the petitioners and learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon on 28.11.2022 passed an award to the tune of Rs. 19,79,400/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from date of application till its realization and fastened the liability with the Insurance Company. He further submits that Rs. 9 lakhs was ordered to be deposited in a fixed deposit on the name of petitioner No. 1 [wife] for a period of five years ; Rs. 2 lakhs each was ordered to be deposited in fixed deposits on the names of petitioners No. 2 to 4 [children] till they attain majority and Rs. 2 lakhs each was ordered to be deposited in fixed deposits on the names of petitioners No. 5 and 6 [parents] for a period of three 3 years. He contends that petitioners want to purchase adjacent land and agreement has already been entered into between the owner of land and petitioners on 01.05.2023. He further contends that application was moved by petitioners for premature release of the fixed deposit amount but same has been rejected by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 25.02.2023. He prays to set aside the impugned order and allow this petition. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 opposes. 4) Heard. 5) Evidently, application was moved before the Tribunal for premature release of fixed deposit amount for purchase of a plot and the necessity assigned by the petitioners was not found appropriate by the Tribunal. Further, order can be passed for premature release of award amount in cases where there is some medical emergency or for marriage of children or construction of house but for purchasing a plot of land, such order cannot be passed. 6) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this court, no case is made out to interfere with the order impugned. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.15 13:13:32 +0530