1 2025:CGHC:21020 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 388 of 2023  Kumari Riya Verma (Minor) D/o Naresh Kumar Verma, Aged About 5 Years R/o Kari (Bilari) P.S. Kasdol District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. Through Natural Guardian Shri Naresh Kumar Verma (Father). Wrongly Mentioned As Kumari Riya Verma (Minor), Aged About 5 Years, S/o Naresh Kumar Verma, R/o Kari (Bilari) P.S. Kasdol, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh In Impugned Order Dated 27/02/2023 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Bhukhanlal Sahu S/o Ghasiyaram Sahu Aged About 36 Years Koma, Post Kirwal Teh. Rajim, District Griyaband Current Add Ward No. 01, Rajim, Ps. Rajim, District Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 2. Wahi. Rajendra Prasad S/o Wahi. S. Murti Rajev Gandhi, Ward, Wardhman Colony, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 3. United India Insurance Compnay Ltd S/o L.I.C. Building Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Order Dated 27/2/2023 As United India Insurance Company Ltd. S/o L.I.C. Champs Ground Floor, L.I.C. Building, Pandri, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Alok Dubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07. 05.2025 Heard on admission. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an award of Rs. 6,44,521/- was passed by the learned Tribunal in favour of the minor Kumari Riya Verma in Motor Accidents Claim Case No. 47/2021 vide award SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.05.08 14:32:02 +0530 2 dated 29.07.2022. He would further submit that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries, became disabled and is unable to walk. He would also submit that the petitioner needs continuous medical assistance, and therefore, an application was moved for withdrawal of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the award amount, but the learned Tribunal rejected the application. He would contend that the parents of the petitioner have no permanent source of income; therefore, it is very difficult for them to manage the medical expenses of the petitioner. He would pray to allow the application. 2. Heard. 3. Perusal of the order passed by the learned tribunal and the documents would show that the petitioner failed to place documents relating to medical expenses before the learned tribunal; therefore, the application was rejected. 4. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the petitioner is permitted to move a fresh application before the learned claims tribunal along with relevant documents to establish the exact amount incurred in the medical treatment of the petitioner and the learned tribunal is directed to decide such application, if moved, strictly in accordance with the law. 5. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant