[2025:RJ-JP:38528] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12908/2025 1. Smt. Mamta W/o Late Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Dhani Patawali, Trilokpura, Tan Nayan, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Bhavesh S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 4 Years, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Mamta W/o Late Shri Mohan Lal, R/o Dhani Patawali, Trilokpura, Tan Nayan, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Sanjeev S/o Ramniwas, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Chardara, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur Rajsthan. (Present Driver Of The Vehicle Ashok Leyland Truck No.r.j.-32 Gc 1167) 2. M/s Shri Sahaj Bharti Carrier, Through Manager, address Deota Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Present Regd.owner Of The Vehicle Ashok Leyland Truck No.r.j.-32 Gc 1167) 3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Manager, Office Sahakar Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Housing Board Flats, Lal Kothi Jaipur (Present Insurance Company Of The Vehicle Ashok Leyland Truck No.r.j.-32 Gc 1167) Insurance Policey No. 243307/31/2022/845, Validity From Dated 17/06/2021 To Till 16/06/2022 4. Smt. Bodi Devi W/o Bhura Ram, Aged About 82 Years, R/o Dhani Patawali, Trilokpura, Tan Nayan, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. Sujan Singh S/o Bhura Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Dhani Patawali, Trilokpura, Tan Nayan, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 6. Jhabar S/o Bhura Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Dhani Patawali, Trilokpura, Tan Nayan, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 7. Rajendra Prasad S/o Bhura Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Dhani Patawali, Trilokpura, Tan Nayan, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Jangid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakhar Agrawal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 19/09/2025 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that instant matter pertains to pre-mature release of FDR amount. It is further [2025:RJ-JP:38528] (2 of 4) [CW-12908/2025] submitted that instant matter has akin factual matrix as under S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14035/2024 titled as Chanda Devi and ors. vs. Rajendra Singh and ors. decided on 01.09.2025 by this Court, therefore, the same can be adjudicated in light of Chanda Devi and ors. (Supra). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reiterated herein below: “Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon a perusal of the material available on record, this Court at this juncture deems it apposite to act in consonance with the guidelines spelled out in the ratio of General Manager, Kerela State Transportation Corporation, Trivandram (Supra), the relevant extract of which is reproduced herein below: “17.In a case of compensation for death it is appropriate that the Tribunals do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this Court in Union Carbide Cor poration and Ors . v. Union of India and Ors.: AIR1992SC248 in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation. In that case approving the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan and Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. 1982 1 Guj. LR 756 this Court offered the following guidelines: (i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor be invested in long term fixed deposits at least till the date of the minor attaining majority. The expenses incurred by the guardian or next friend may, however, be allowed to be withdrawn; (ii) In the case of illiterate claimants also the Claims Tribunal should follow the procedure set out in (i) above, but if lump sum payment is required for effecting purchases of any movable or immovable property such as, agricultural implements, rickshaw, etc., to earn a living, the Tribunal may consider such a request after making sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money; (iii) In the case of semi-literate persons the Tribunal should ordinarily resort to the procedure set out at (i) above unless it is satisfied, for reasons to be stated in writing, that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding and existing business or for purchasing some property as mentioned in (ii) above for earning [2025:RJ-JP:38528] (3 of 4) [CW-12908/2025] his livelihood, in which case the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid; (iv) In the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in (i) above, subject to the relaxation set out in (ii) and (iii) above, if having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensuring the safety of the compensation awarded to him thinks it necessary to do order; (v) In the case of widows the Claims Tribunal should invariably follow the procedure set out in (i) above; (vi) In personal injury cases if further treatment is necessary the Claims Tribunal on being satisfied about the same, which shall be recorded in writing, permit withdrawal of such amount as is necessary for incurring the expenses for such treatment; (vii) In all cases in which investment in long term fixed deposits is made it should be on condition that the Bank will not permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposit and interest on the amount invested is paid monthly directly to the claimant or his guardian, as the case may be; (viii) In all cases Tribunal should grant to the claimants liberty to apply for withdrawal in case of an emergency. To meet with such a contingency, if the amount awarded is substantial, the Claims Tribunal may invest it in more than Fixed Deposit so that if need be one such F.D.R. can be liquidated." These guidelines should be borne in mind by the Tribunals in the cases of compensation in accident cases. 18. In the result this appeal succeeds in part and the compensation is determined at Rs. 2,25,000/-. The judgment of the High Court is modified accordingly. No costs.” Considering the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments as that FD should be retained in the bank for the benefit of minor/widow or as per facts of the case, it is opined that the matter at hand is a case where a pre-mature release of Rs.5,00,000/- as asked for, moreover, it appears to be genuine plea as the same is asked for renovation of the house; that the petitioner is a widow, illiterate who is also having custody of children. In light of the above, the present petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 24.07.2024 is set aside. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Parties are directed to carry out the requisites.” [2025:RJ-JP:38528] (4 of 4) [CW-12908/2025] Learned counsel for the respondents has raised no objections to the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Considering the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the respective parties, this Court deems it apposite to adjudicate the instant matter in light of Chanda Devi and ors. (Supra). Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure-3) is set aside. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Parties are directed to carry out the requisites. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/25