1 2026:CGHC:25765 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 692 of 2026 1 - Ajay Kumar Jangde @ Ajay Kumar Jangade S/o Shri Rekhram Jangde, Aged About 47 Years R/o Naya Pool Road Jawahar Ward Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli, C.G.495334. Presently Residing At Near Higher Secondary School, Devri Khurd, Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. 2 - Smt. Brihaspati Jangde@ Brihaspati Jangad W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Jangde, Aged About 40 Years R/o Naya Pool Road Jawahar Ward Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli, C.G.495334. Presently Residing At Near Higher Secondary School, Devri Khurd, Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. 3 - Chandradeep Jangde @ Chandradeep Jangade S/o Ajay Kumar Janjgde, Aged About 19 Years R/o Naya Pool Road Jawahar Ward Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli, C.G.495334. Presently Residing At Near Higher Secondary School, Devri Khurd, Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Rashid Shekh S/o Mo. Ibrahim Shekh, Aged About 29 Years R/o Paramhans Ward Kharraghat, Police Station Mungeli, Tehsil And District SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.06.29 11:10:18 +0530 2 Mungeli, Tehsil And District Mungeli, C. G. 495334 (Driver Of Wagon R Car C G-10-F A-0107) 2 - Sanjay Khan S/o Bashir Khan, Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 198, Ward No. 22, Nawagaon Road, Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli, 495334 (Owner Of Wagon R Car C G-10-F A-0107) 3 - Go Digital General Insurance Company Limited Raipur Branch Office - C 246/6, Near Sant Gyaneshwar School, Vallabhnagar, Old Rajendra Nagar, Tikrapara Civil Line, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 492001 (Vehicle Insurance Company) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 23/06/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 13.05.2026 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in MJC (Civil) No. 247/2026 whereby the application filed by the petitioners for premature withdrawal of the amount from their fixed deposits has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners were claimants before the learned Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 3 1452/2023 which was decided by the learned Claims Tribunal on 21.03.2025, however, on an application filed by the non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company, an amended award was passed by the learned Claims Tribunal on 01.09.2025 whereby an amount of Rs. 18,87,168/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants on account of death of son of the applicants No.1 and 2 and brother of applicant No. 3. In the award, the applicants No. 1 and 2 were held entitled for 40-40% and the applicant No.3 was held entitled for 20% of the total awarded amount alongwith its accrued interest. Pursuant to the award dated 21.03.2025 and the amended award dated 01.09.2025, the non- applicant No.3 Insurance Company has deposited the award amount before the learned Claims Tribunal and as per the entitlement of the respective claimants, an amount of Rs. 8,63,743.20/- has been received by the applicant No.1, Rs. 8,63,743.20/- has been received by the applicant No.2 and Rs. 4,31,871/- has been received by the applicant No.3, out of which Rs. 4,31,871.60/- - Rs.4,31,871.60/- has been kept in fixed deposits for a period of three years at Punjab National Bank, Collectorate Branch, Bilaspur and an amount of Rs.2,15,935.80 has been kept in fixed deposit for three years at Punjab National Bank, Collectorate Branch, Bilaspur. He would further submit that the petitioner No.3 is a marriageable person and for his convenience, the petitioners are required to construct additional room in their house for which they required the amount which has been kept in fixed deposits. If the said amount has not been prematurely released, it would be very hardship for the petitioners to manage the family affairs particularly, the marriage of the petitioner No.3. He would further submit that the petitioners made an application for premature 4 release of the amount kept in fixed deposits before the learned Claims Tribunal and the learned Claims Tribunal has partly allowed the application filed by the petitioners and only released the amount deposited in the name of petitioner No.3, however, with respect to the amount kept in fixed deposit in the name of petitioners No. 1 and 2 has been rejected. He would further submit that the petitioners are literate person and they are able to manage their amount and property, compensation has also been paid for their convenience and to use it for their requirement. In support of his submission, he would rely upon the order passed by this Court in WP(227) No. 221/2022 dated 04/05/2022, Smt. Jag Bai Sahu V/s Satyendra Sharma and others and order passed by the Gujarat High Court in R/Special Civil Application No. 13772/2022 dated 02.08.2022, Bipinchandra Babulal Thakkar V/s Govindbhai M Prajapati. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the document annexed with the petition. 5. The deposition of the aforesaid amount in the name of the petitioners are not in dispute. The award has been passed on 21.03.2025 and amended award has been passed on 01.09.2025. Pursuant thereto, the amount has been deposited by the non-applicant No. 3 Insurance Company. The petitioners have pleaded in para 8.6 of their writ petition about the total amount awarded to the petitioners and the amount kept in fixed deposits in their names. According to the pleadings of the petitioners, Rs. 4,31,871.60/- - Rs. 4,31,871.60/- have been kept in fixed deposits and the like amounts has been paid to them in cash through the savings bank account whereas an amount of Rs. 5 2,15,935.80/- was kept in fixed deposits in the name of petitioner No.3 and the like amount has been given to him in cash through savings bank account. It transpires that the amended award was passed on 01.09.2025 and certainly the amount has been deposited thereafter, though the petitioners have not pleaded as to on which date they received the said amount from the Claims Tribunal or when the fixed deposits came into existence, however, it can infer that it probably in the month of October, 2025. After passing of the award, a substantial amount has been paid to the petitioners, however, there is no evidence with respect to use of the said amount as to whether amount received by the petitioners have been spent in constructing the house or used in somewhere else. From perusal of the application filed by the petitioners, it transpires that they sought premature release of the amount on the ground that petitioner No.3 is marriageable person and for his convenience, they are required to construct the extra room in their house. On a pointed query being asked from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner No.3 is employed or not, he would replied that presently the petitioner has not employed anywhere. Further, from perusal of the impugned order, it would show that the learned Claims Tribunal has already released the amount kept in fixed deposit of the petitioner No.3, however, with respect to the petitioners No.1 and 2, their application has been rejected. 6. No doubt, the amount of compensation is to be awarded for convenience and use of the claimants to maintain their family affairs, however, keeping the amount in fixed deposit is also in view to secure the amount so awarded to the claimants against its misuse. From the 6 impugned order passed by learned Claims Tribunal, it transpires that the learned Claims Tribunal has confronted the requirement of the petitioners from their own to which the petitioners submitted that they are required the amount for renovation of their house and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of claim by the petitioners, the learned Claims Tribunal has permitted the petitioner No.3 for premature withdrawal of their fixed deposits and has rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioners No. 1 and 2. After considering the entire material produced in the case, I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error warranted interference in the impugned order passed by learned Claims Tribunal. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable with the facts of the present case, therefore, no benefit can be extended to the petitioners by that judgments. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit