2025:CGHC:10540 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) No. 96 of 2026 Kumari Yogita Nishad, D/o Late Ashok Kumar Nishad, aged about 20 Years, R/o Ward No. 07, Sirsa Road, Arya Nagar, Kohka, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner Versus 1 - Ranjeet Singh Matthi, S/o Raghuveer Singh Matthi, aged about 40 Years, R/o Condector Colony, Shriram Market Ram Nagar, Joshi Line Near Preetam Building, Supela, Bhilai, Police Supela, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Amit Kumar Singh, S/o Late Anil Prasad Singh, aged about 29 Years, R/o 29/3a, Maitry Nagar, Risali, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. (As Per Annex. A/2 Claim Tribunal Award Dated 13/01/2025 Its Correctly Mentioned). 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Macaro Divisional Office, Paras Complex, State Bank Of India, Gurudwara Station Road, Durg, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Sushila Nishad W/o Late Ashok Kumar Nishad Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Sirsa Road, Arya Nagar, Kohka, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Bhukhin Bai W/o Late Manthir Lal Nishad Aged About 66 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Sirsa Road, Arya Nagar, Kohka, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Jai Prakash Nishad S/o Late Manthir Lal Nishad Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Sirsa Road, Arya Nagar, Kohka, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 27/01/2026 1. Heard on Admission. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 227 of Constitution of India against an order dated 09/10/2025 passed by Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’), Durg, District – Durg passed in M.J.C. Civil ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.01.30 10:41:01 +0530 No. 510/2025 by which the application of the petitioner for premature withdrawal of the awarded amount invested in fixed deposit for five years was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the daughter of Ashok Kumar Nishad who died in a road accident that took place on 20/12/2020. She further submits that petitioner along-with respondent No. 4 to 6 moved an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘MV Act’) before the Claims Tribunal which was registered as Motor Accident Claim Case No. 31/2021. An award dated 13th January, 2025 was passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, thereby awarding total compensation of Rs.72,25,604/- along- with 9% interest in favour of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 to 6. In compliance of the said award, the respondent No. 3 deposited the awarded amount before the learned Claims Tribunal. An amount of Rs.17,32,915/- which fell in the share of the petitioner was deposited as fixed deposit for five years in her name in the nationalized bank and the maturity date of which is 23/06/2013. She further submits that the petitioner has received certain lands from her father upon which the petitioner intend to construct a house. The document to show the ownership of the petitioner quotation of the expenses needed for construction of house etc. was placed before the learned Claims Tribunal along with the application for premature withdrawal of the fixed deposit. The learned Claims Tribunal vide impugned order, rejected the same holding that the petitioner has not filed the permission from the competent authority for construction of the house. She further submits that the petitioner is presently aged about 25 years and able to understand of her well being. As the petitioner at present residing with her mother and she needs her own house, the rejection of the petitioner application is bad in law and thus impugned order is required to be set a side. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. There is no dispute to the fact the award was passed in favour of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 to 6. As per submission of Ms. Singh, Advocate an amount of Rs.17,32,915/- was invested as fixed deposit for a period of five years in the name of the petitioner. The perusal of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner has filed the revenue records like B1, map, Khasra, Rinpustika and quotation for construction of the house. However, it has not submitted the permission of the sanctioned map. Learned tribunal has also found that by keeping the said amount in the fixed deposit, her future and interest would be protected. It has further been observed that the deposit was made only three months prior and within a short span of time, the application was filed. Taking into consideration the above stated facts, the application was rejected by the claims tribunal. In the opinion of this Court, the finding so recorded is based upon facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping the future interest of the petitioner. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in rejecting the application by the the learned Claims Tribunal. 6. Thus, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the liberty is reserved to the petitioner to move a fresh application in case of any eventuality arises with proper pleading and documents. Sd/- /-- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish