1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1296 of 2025 1 - Fagulal Son S/o Sadanand Son Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Sundargarh Teka, Police Station And Tahsil - Pithaura, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Karim Khan S/o Late Rasul Khan Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 4 Nayapara Mahasamund, Police Station And District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Branch Manager Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Co. Ltd. 1st Floor Pujari Complex, Taigor Nagar, Near Pachpedi Naka Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Party Made As Per Annexure P/1) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 10/12/2025 Heard on admission. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner suffered permanent special abalement on account of the injuries sustain by him in an accident that occurred on 22.02.2023 by rash and negligent of driving of offending vehicle truck bearing registration CG 04 /GM-7091 by respondent No. 1. A claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short of MV Act) was filed by the petitioner before the Principal Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Mahasamund CG which was PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2025.12.10 17:23:16 +0530 2 registered as Motor Accident Claims Case No. H-98/2023. Vide its award dated 09.08.2024, the learned claims tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 2177740 along with interest. He submits that in compliance of the said award, the insurance company respondent No. 2 has deposited the amount and the portion said amount has been invested in the fixed deposit. Therefore, for premature withdrawal of the fixed deposit, an application was filed as the petitioner wanted to start grocery shop. The learned Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 04.11.2025 dismissed the said application against which this writ petition is filed. He further submits that the premature withdrawal of the invested amount is necessary to the petitioner for starting its grocery business, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record. 4. Perusal of the documents indicate that the amount of Rs. 2177740/- was awarded in favour of the petitioner. The impugned order also reflected that out of the total amount, an amount of Rs. 728745/- was paid to the petitioner on 20.01.2025 and on a subsequent application further sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner on 05.07.2025. Thus, taking into the consideration this aspect of the matter, the learned claims tribunal has dismissed the application. As sufficient amount has already been disbursed to the petitioner, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in rejecting the application of the petitioner for premature withdrawal. 4. Thus, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan