1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1192 of 2025 1 - Amit Kumar S/o Alakh Ram Nayak Aged About 29 Years R/o Sakin, Bansakara, P.S. Simga, Distt. Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Pradeep Kumar Netam S/o Lalsingh Netam Aged About 36 Years Sakin, Karpawand, P.S. Karpawand, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Maheshwar Yadav S/o Somaru Ram Yadav Sakin Jamguda Dhanpur Karpawand, P.S. Karpawand, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 3 - National Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Division Office 1st Floor, Shanti Chabi Tower, Sirasar Chowk, Power House Road, Upper Floor Of Allahabad Bank, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 494001. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 19/11/2025 This writ petition Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Kanker, District Uttar Bastar, CG in Misc. MACT No. 91 of 2025 by which the application of the petitioner for premature PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2025.11.20 11:32:07 +0530 2 withdrawal of the fixed deposit amount was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner met with an accident on 22.11.2023 and resulted into he being become differently able. A claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was filed by him before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Kanker, District Uttar Bastar, CG which was registered at Motor Accident Claim Case No. 42 of 2024 and vide its award dated 01.02.2025, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 7,91,227/- along with 7% interest from the date of application. In compliance of the said award, the insurance company has deposited the amount of award out of which Rs. 4,54,503/- was invested as fixed deposit in Punjab national Bank in the name of the petitioner for the period of five years. Thereafter, for premature withdrawal of the said amount, the petitioner made an application before the learned Tribunal as he has obtained certain loans to carry out his business which was required to be repaid. This application was rejected by learned Tribunal by the impugned order. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has not considered the need of the petitioner for premature withdrawal of the said amount as his required to pay back the loan amount and as he has become differently able, he would become any difficult for him to pay back the amount. He submits that the documents have been filed along with this writ petition. 3. Be that as it may, perusal of the impugned order indicates though various pleadings have been raised by the petitioner that he has obtained certain amount agriculture loan and other loans for different financial institution however, he had not filed any document. The learned Tribunal has also observed that the petitioner has not mentioned that as to which place he want to start his fishing business. No document has been filed when the fishing seeds was purchased no receipt is on record neither any document was filed. It has also been observed in the impugned order that 3 the petitioner is working as reliance telecoms J. S. Consultancy Telly communication and was earning Rs. 25,000/- as pleaded in the claim application. It has also observed that within a short span of three months, this application has been filed and relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court has not considered fit to prematurely release the fixed deposited amount. This finding does not appear to be perverse or contrary to the evidence warranting interference by this Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan