[2026:RJ-JP:414] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18368/2025 1. Mukesh Kumar Saini S/o Shri Madan Lal Saini, Aged About 69 Years, R/o 1301, Sangatrashan, Police Post Ke Pas, Paharganj, Swami Ram Tirth Nagar S.o. Central Delhi-110055 2. Smt Madhu Saini W/o Shri Mukesh Kumar, Saini, Aged About 66 Years, R/o 1301, Sangatrashan, Police Post Ke Pas, Paharganj, Swami Ram Tirth Nagar S.o. Central Delhi-110055 3. Abhinav Mukesh Saini S/o Shri Mukesh Saini, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 1301, Sangatrashan, Police Post Ke Pas, Paharganj, Swami Ram Tirth Nagar S.o. Central Delhi- 110055 ----Petitioners Versus 1. Rajnish S/o Shri Kishan Lal, R/o - Gram - Post- Kurahwata, District Mahendragarh, Haryana (Registered Owner Vehicle Truck No. - Hr-66-B-1072) 2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Office -C-18, First Floor, Tirupatim Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Policy Effective From Date 03.05.2019 To 02.05.2020 (Insurance Company Vehicle Truck No. Hr-66-B-1072) 3. Krishanlal Through Vehicle Swami Rajnish S/o Shri Kishan Lal, R/o - Gram - Post-Murahvata, District Mahendragarh, Hariyana (Vehicle Driver Truck No. - Hr-66-B-1072) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.M. Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 07/01/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the "learned MACT"), rejecting their application for premature release of the amount lying in FDRs in their name in accordance with the learned MACT's award dated 05.02.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned MACT has glaringly ignored the economic background of the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, are aged 66 and 69 years, respectively, and are in dire need of [2026:RJ-JP:414] (2 of 4) [CW-18368/2025] funds for their son-petitioner No. 3, for his higher education and marriage; he also submits that the petitioners do not have any source of income to support such a financial burden. 3. Heard. 4. Having considered the application, as also the fact that the main award was passed on 05.02.2025, and the age of the petitioners No.1 & 2, is 69 and 66 years respectively. This Court of the considered view that the learned MACT has dismissed the petitioners' application in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. The learned MACT has overlooked the economic strata to which the petitioners belong. In the opinion of this Court, the learned MACT ought to have appreciated that in cases seeking premature release of the amount deposited, it is expected to consider the welfare of the claimant, who is a legal heir of the deceased, and not act in a hyper-technical manner. 5. At this stage it may be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.V. Padma & Ors. v. R. Venugopal and Ors.1, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while examining the plea seeking disbursal of the amount without insisting on the deposit of any portion thereof with any nationalised bank, had after observing that the Tribunals were mechanically rejecting the claimant's applications for withdrawal of the compensation amount without proper application of mind had opined that a change of attitude was required while dealing with such matters. It may be relevant to refer to Para 8, 9 and 10 of decision, which read as under:- "8. Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in 1 (2012) 3 SCC 378 [2026:RJ-JP:414] (3 of 4) [CW-18368/2025] long-term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long-term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semi- literate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money. 9. The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long-term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long-term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him. 10. The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long-term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice." 6. Looking to the facts of the present case, more particularly that the petitioners No.1 and 2 are of the age 69 and 66 years respectively, and they are in dire need of funds for the higher education and marriage of their son-petitioner No.3; I am of the considered opinion that the Petitioner's request for premature [2026:RJ-JP:414] (4 of 4) [CW-18368/2025] release of the FDRs cannot at all be said to be unjustified. The learned MACT, while dealing with such applications, should look into the matter sympathetically and keep in mind that the only relevant factor in the premature release of the amount is the welfare of the deceased's legal heirs. 7. For all the aforesaid reasons, the present writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 26.08.2025 is modified to the extent that the learned MACT is directed to release only the amount lying in the first two FDRs of Rs.5,00,000/- each prematurely (which are scheduled to mature in the year 2026 and 2027, respectively) in terms of the award dated 05.02.2024 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 272/2022. 8. The said amount (i.e. Rs.10,00,000/-) shall be deposited in the name of petitioner No.1 in his savings bank account within a period of one month from the date of filing of the certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the petitioner No.1 is hereby directed to furnish details of his savings bank account to the learned MACT for necessary action and compliance. 9. However, the rest of the prayer of the petitioners is declined at this stage; and it is made clear that apart from the direction issued above, the rest of the impugned award dated shall remain intact. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. 11. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-34