2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(227) No. 1018 of 2025 Nishu Yadav D/o Late Shri Prahlad Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- And Post- Chirhula, Thana, Tahsil And Distt- Mungeli (C.G.) ---- Petitioner Versus 1 - Chandrakar Krishi Kendra Through Its Proprietor Manharan Chandrakar R/o Ward No.12, Mahka, Bagharra, Thana And Tahsil Pandariya Distt- Kabeerdham (C.G.) (Owner Of Vehicle No.Cg.09.J.F.3144) 2 - Hemant Kurmi S/o Shri Ashok Kurmi Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Pandotra, Post- Kosamtara Thana- Fastarpur - Satganga, Tahsil And Distt- Mungeli, (C.G.) (Driver Of Vehicle No.Cg-09-J.F.-3144) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Second Floor, R.D.A. Building, Bajrang, Market. G.E. Road, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Vehicle No.Cg-09- J.F. 3144) Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 13/10/2025 1. This writ petition under Section 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the validity, legality and correctness of the order dated 27/06/2025 passed by I Upper Motor Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in CT Case No. - 72/ 2025. By the said order the application of the petitioner for premature withdrawal of the awarded amount in his favour was partly allowed and only Rs.50,000/- was directed to be withdrawan. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in an accident had occured on 13/12/2020 in which house of the petitioenr was damaged. Seeking companssionate for such damage a claim application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) was filed before the I Additional Motor Claims Tribunal Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) which was registered as claim case No. 11/2022. ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.10.29 12:48:30 +0530 -2- The said application was partly allowed and an award of RS.7,00,000/- with 9% interest was passed in favour of the petitioner on 18/03/2024.The Insurance Comapny deposited an amount of Rs.8,08,532/- before the learned Claims Tribunal out of which 50% amount was disbursed to the petitioner and 50% amount ie. Rs.4,04,266/- was invested in the fixed deposit for three years and maturity value of the same was Rs.4,90,539/-. He submits that an application for premature withdrawal of the said amount was made as the petitioner is required to repair his house by constructing the roof. He has expended certain amount in the marriage of his sister and funeral of his parents. Learned Tribunal had committed an error of law only permitting Rs.50,000/- to be withdrawn for the said purpose. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the entire amount which has been deposited in the fixed deposit. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The learned Tribunal while deciding the application has categorically held that the petitioner has not specified as how much loan he has obtained for the purposes of the marriage of his sister and expenditure in the last rights of his parents. He has also not specified as how much amount is required for the construction of the roof of the house. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the reason assigned does not appear to be bonafide and trustworthy and thus permitted only Rs.50,000/- amount to be withdrawn. The finding recorded appears to be based on proper appreciation of the material available on record. Therefore, this Court at this stage is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move a fresh application with proper pleadings and documents to demonstrate his need for premature withdrawal of the said amount. 5. With this observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of . 6. All the pending applications are also disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish