[2025:RJ-JP:7272] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No.28/2023 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.866/2004 Anil Kumar S/o Munna Lal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 44, Rampura Roopa, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Devi Lal S/o Shri Govind Ram, R/o 18-D, Shiv Colony, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Damodar Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Girdhari Lal, R/o 33, Ram Nagar Colony, Jaipur. 3. The United India Insurance Company Ltd., through Regional Manager, Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Jitendra Mitrucka For Respondent(s) : Mr.Santosh Kumar Soni for Mr.Praveen Jain JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/02/2025 1. Matter comes up on an S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No.28/2023 submitted by the petitioner, seeking premature release of the FDRs deposited in the nationalized bank against the enhanced amount of compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner by this court vide order dated 05.07.2022. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner sustained 76.67% permanent disability in the year 1996 for which he filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") seeking compensation. Counsel submits that the inadequate amount of compensation, i.e., Rs.1,91,300/- only [2025:RJ-JP:7272] (2 of 3) [CMAP-28/2023] was awarded by the Tribunal vide awar dated 04.01.2003 against which the petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.866/2004 and the same was also allowed by this Court vide order dated 05.07.2022 and the amount was enhanced to Rs.6,91,300/-. 3. Counsels submits that while deciding the aforesaid appeal submitted by the petitioner, this Court passed an order for disbursing the amount of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the petitioner in his Saving Bank Account and rest of the amount was ordered to be retained in Nationalized Bank for a period of three years. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order has been complied by the respondents and the Tribunal, the entire amount is lying in the fixed deposit though the maturity of the same is due in the month of July, 2025, but looking to the critical condition of the petitioner, the aforesaid amount be allowed to be take by the petitioner at this premature stage. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer, but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the order dated 05.07.2022. 6. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the petitioner has sustained 76.67% permanent disability and he has received a petty amount of Rs.1,91,300/- and Rs.50,000/-, and a major amount of the compensation is lying in fixed deposit, in the fitness of the circumstances, this Court deems it just and proper to issue directions to the Tribunal as well as the concerned Bank to [2025:RJ-JP:7272] (3 of 3) [CMAP-28/2023] release the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner and rest of the amount be retained in the FDRs till its maturity. 7. The instant misc. application stands disposed of accordingly. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/203