1 2026:CGHC:22142 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 572 of 2026 1 - Durpati Wd/o. Late Motilal Aged About 53 Years R/o. Village- Budgahan Police Station And Tahsil - Balauda, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Basant Kumar S/o. Late Motilal Aged About 35 Years R/o. Village- Budgahan Police Station And Tahsil - Balauda, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Rajkumar S/o. Late Motilal Aged About 30 Years R/o. Village- Budgahan Police Station And Tahsil - Balauda, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Tikaram Kanwar S/o. Nandjharokha Aged About 33 Years R/o. Village- Satigudi, Ward No. 08, Pahriya Chowk, Pantora Police Station- Balauda, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.-10 B.R.-0865) 2 - Sandip Manikpuri S/o. Sukhsagar Aged About 23 Years W/o. Kumar Yadaw R/o. Village- Mudipar, Police Station- Bilha District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.-10 B.R.-0865) 2 3 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- Rama Trade Centre, 2nd Floor, Old Bus Staion, In Front Of Rajiv Plaza, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.), (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.-10 Br-0865) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None present (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Agrawal) Order on Board 11/05/2026 The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 23.03.2026 passed by the learned Ninth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in MJC Civil No. 67/2026, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner seeking premature withdrawal of an amount of Rs.3,20,000/-, kept in fixed deposit in her name, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an award came to be passed in favour of the petitioner and her two sons vide order dated 10.05.2025 in the National Lok Adalat, whereby a total compensation of Rs.8,70,000/- was awarded. Out of the said amount, Rs.3,20,000/- was released in favour of the petitioner and Rs.1,00,000/- each was disbursed to her two sons, whereas the remaining amount was directed to be kept in fixed deposit for a period of three years in the name of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner requires the said amount for renovation of her dilapidated residential house and, therefore, an application seeking premature withdrawal of the amount 3 from the fixed deposit was moved before the learned Claims Tribunal. However, the said application has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce any document establishing ownership of the house as well as the necessity for withdrawal of the amount for renovation purposes. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the ensuing rainy season, the petitioner is in urgent need of carrying out renovation work in the house and, therefore, permission for premature withdrawal deserves to be granted. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 4. Upon perusal of the documents annexed with the petition, it transpires that no document evidencing ownership of the house in the name of the petitioner has been filed. The only document placed on record is a certificate annexed at page No.16, allegedly issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Budgahan, certifying that the petitioner is a resident of the said village and that her house is in a dilapidated condition requiring renovation, for which an expenditure of approximately Rs.3,20,000/- is expected to be incurred. 5. However, merely on the basis of the aforesaid certificate, this Court is not inclined to permit premature withdrawal of the amount lying in fixed deposit. No cogent material has been brought on record to substantiate either the ownership of the house or the immediate necessity warranting withdrawal of the said amount. 4 6. Accordingly, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. The petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.05.15 12:59:30 +0530