1 2026:CGHC:14430 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 338 of 2026 1 - Smt. Laxmi Sahu Wd/o Late Tikendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Parastarai, Shanti Chowk, Ward No. 06, P.S. Dharsiva, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Ramji Sahu S/o Late Firturam Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Parastarai, Shanti Chowk, Ward No. 06, P.S. Dharsiva, District Raipur, C.G. 3 - Smt. Pramila Sahu W/o Shri Ramji Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Parastarai, Shanti Chowk, Ward No. 06, P.S. Dharsiva, District Raipur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chandrabhan Verma S/o Shri Ratiram Verma Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Khudmudi, P.S. Newra, Tilda, District Raipur, C.G. (Driver Of The Motorcycle No. C.G. 04 / H R / 6311) 2 - H.D.F.C. I R G O General Insurance Company Limited Through The Incharge Officer, H.D.F.C. I.R.G.O. General Insurance Company Limited, Third Floor, Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar, District Raipur, C.G. (Driver Of The Motorcycle No. C.G. 04 / H R / 6311) 3 - Khilendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Tikendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian- Mother Smt. Laxmi Sahu, R/o Parastarai, Shanti Chowk, Ward No. 06, P.S. Dharsiva, District Raipur, C.G. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.03.30 18:19:01 +0530 2 4 - Hemraj Sahu S/o Late Tikendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian- Mother Smt. Laxmi Sahu, R/o Parastarai, Shanti Chowk, Ward No. 06, P.S. Dharsiva, District Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 25.03.2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 passed by learned 9th Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (in short claims tribunal, Raipur) in MJC No. 211/2026 whereby the application filed by the petitioners for withdrawal of the amount from the fixed deposits which was kept in the names of the petitioners as well as Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have been rejected. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioners as well as the Respondent No. 3 and 4 were the claimants in the claim case No. 474/2019 which was decided by the learned Claims Tribunal, Raipur vide its award dated 30.09.2022 and an amount of Rs. 3761392/- was awarded in favour of the claimants as compensation against death of one Tikendra Kumar Sahu. The claimants being the wife, children and parents of the deceased had claimed the said amount. In the award dated 30.09.2022, there was an apportionment of the amount of the 3 award that out of the total compensation, the claimant No. 1 Smt. Laxmi Sahu was entitled for Rs. 4,50,000/-, claimant No. 4 Ramjeet Sahu and claimant No. 5 Smt. Prameela Sahu were entitled for Rs. 1,25,000/- each in cash. The remaining amount to the compensation shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank to the instance that the 30% of the remaining amount should be deposited in the names of Laxmi Sahu, Khilendra Kumar Sahu and Hemraj Sahu and the remaining amount in equal proportion shall be kept in fixed deposit in the names of claimants No. 4 and 5, for the period of 5-5 years and the amount which has been so deposited in the names of minor claimants should have been deposited up to their age of majority. It is also ordered that the major claimants can received the interest over their fixed deposits and the said amount so deposited in the names of minor claims, shall not be withdrawn before their majority without prior permission of the Court. 4. The petitioners had filed an application before the learned Claims Tribunal, Raipur on 31.07.2025 for pre-mature release of the withdrawal of the amount deposited in the names of the petitioners in fixed deposit as per the conditions/ award dated 30.09.2022. On the ground that the petitioners entered into an agreement to purchase a land from its owner Shaligram Pal on 18.07.2025 and therefore, they are required the said amount to purchase the property, therefore, the said fixed deposit may be liquidated and they may be permitted to withdraw the amount from the fixed deposit. The learned trial Court has rejected the application 4 filed by the petitioners by the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 which is under challenged in the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners though are major but to secure their future and their earning capacity, they wanted to purchase the land from the land owner for which they entered into an agreement to purchase the land of Khasara No. 218/5 Area 0.238 Hec. situated at Village- Kura, Tahsil and District- Raipur. He referred the copy of the agreement dated 18.07.2025 which has been annexed at Page No. 29 in the writ petition. He further submits that keeping the amount in the fixed deposit or purchasing the land from the said amount would have the similar outcome of the amount of compensation and the purpose behind both this aspects are not to misuse the amount of compensation so awarded in favour of the claimants. The petitioners are bound to produce the copy of sale deed if the amount would be release in their favour and it is got registered in the name of the petitioners. It is for the benefit of minor claimants also as her mother was also the party in that agreement and would be in the sale-deed. The learned Claims Tribunal, Raipur has rejected the application on the ground that the interest of the minor claimants should also to be protected, however, they were not made as a party in that agreement, therefore, the transaction between the claimants and the proposed seller of the land is not bona fide and the amount which has been kept in fixed deposit cannot be prematurely released in favour of the petitioners. The impugned order suffers from perversity with respect to the entitlement of the compensation to the petitioners and the 5 interest. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the petition may be allowed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. The undisputed fact in the case are that pursuant to the award dated 30.09.2022 passed in MACT Case No. 474/2019 certain amounts have been paid to the claimants in case, however, the remaining amount has been kept in fixed deposit, either in the names of the petitioners or in the names of the minor claimants who are the respondent No. 3 and 4 in the present writ petition. From perusal of the agreement, it transpires that it was executed on 18.07.2025 and it was the condition that the sale deed is to be executed within two months from 14.07.2025. The time of two months have already been elapes and there is no any renewal of the agreement in favour of claimants. Even there is no pleadings that this agreement has been renewed with the consent of the parties, however, the minor claimant who are the respondent No. 3 and 4 have not been made as a party in the sale agreement. Further that without applying for encasement of fixed deposit, the petitioners have entered into the agreement which is not appears to be bona fide in their part. Admittedly, the date of execution of alleged agreement dated 18.07.2025, the petitioners had not applied for pre-mature release of their amount which has been kept in fixed deposit and the application have been made only on 31.07.2025 i.e. after execution of the agreement. Further, the amount of compensation has been kept in fixed deposit which was in the name of minor 6 claimants also. It is the very purpose to keep the amount in fixed deposit, to prevent the misuse of the amount of compensation, so awarded to the claimants. The Respondent No. 3 and 4 being the minor claimants in whose favour the amount of compensation has been awarded and kept in fixed deposit, their interest should also to be protected by the parties, yet, no care has been taken to protect the interest of minor claimants. The learned trial Court has rightly considered that interest of minor claimants are also to be protected and has rejected the application for pre-mature release and the amount of fixed deposit in which, I do not find any perversity or illegality. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE sagrika