1 2025:CGHC:49817 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 993 of 2025 1 - Tina Jana W/o Late Sumeet Jana Aged About 25 Years R/o Uday Chowk, Medinipur, Police Station- Daspur, District- Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal, Present Address- Shaheed Brigadier Usman Ward, Gabhrapara, Sudama Nagar, Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Maniklal Jana S/o Late Jatindra Jana Aged About 57 Years R/o Uday Chowk, Medinipur, Police Station- Daspur, District- Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal, Present Address- Shaheed Brigadier Usman Ward, Gabhrapara, Sudama Nagar, Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Umarani Jana W/o Maniklal Jana Aged About 63 Years R/o Uday Chowk, Medinipur, Police Station- Daspur, District- Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal, Present Address- Shaheed Brigadier Usman Ward, Gabhrapara, Sudama Nagar, Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Arun Rai S/o Late Brejnandan Rai, R/o Village Doomri, Police Station- Patori, District- Samastipur, Bihar 2 - Nikhil Shukla S/o Sangam Lal Shukla, R/o Village And Post Bharat Nagar, Chittegaon, District- Aurangabad, Maharashtra 3 - Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office, Ground Floor, Vanijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 2 07/10/2025 Heard on admission. 2. This writ petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the 12th Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Raipur, CG by which an application for premature withdrawal of the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners was partly allowed. 3. Facts which emerges are that a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the petitioners on account of death of husband of the petitioner No. 1. Thereafter, an award dated 30.10.2023 was passed in claim case No. 894 of 2021 whereby an amount of Rs. 50,57,460/- was awarded in favour of the petitioners and 60% out of the said amount was awarded in favour of the petitioner No. 1 and 20% each was awarded in favour of the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3. It has been further observed that 10% of the respective share shall be paid in cash through account payee cheque and rest of the amount shall be invested for five years in a nationalized bank. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application was filed by the petitioners for premature withdrawal of the fixed deposit for requirement of construction of the house and for medical treatment of petitioner Nos. 2 & 3. Though the said application was partly allowed and only three lacs rupees was permitted to be prematurely withdrawn in favour of the petitioner No. 1 and one lacs each was permitted to be prematurely withdrawn in favour of the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3. He submits that the petitioner has also filed the estimate and for that purposes, the much more amount ought to have been permitted to be prematurely withdrawn. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 6. From perusal on record it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the application in a proper manner and looking to the need as projected, permitted three lacs rupees and one lacs rupees each. The order 3 appears to be based on proper reasonable and need of the petitioners. Even otherwise, no medical documents have been filed by the petitioners herein to substantiate that the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are suffering from any serious aliments which would require premature withdrawal. Apart from this, map of the house purportedly to be constructed has also not been appended. In light of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas (mrs) and others reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176, this Court does not find any irregularity and illegality in the impugned order. 7. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan