1 2026:CGHC:26697 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 734 of 2026 1 - Smt. Durgesh Yadav W/o Late Kamal Narayan Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o House No 122, Ward No.6 Rani Durgawati Ward Sahupara Simga District- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Saugat Yadav S/o Late Kamal Narayan Yadav Aged About 10 Years (Minor Through His Mother Smt Durgesh Yadav W/o Late Kamal Narayan Yadav Aged 37 Years ) 3 - Samaru Ram Yadav S/o Mangluram Yadav Aged About 72 Years R/o House No 122, Ward No.6 Rani Durgawati Ward Sahupara Simga District- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Smt Sakun Bai Yadav W/o Samaru Ram Yadav Aged About 70 Years R/o House No 122, Ward No.6 Rani Durgawati Ward Sahupara Simga District- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kachru Nishad S/o Mayaram Nishad R/o Ward Dabri Para Village Kapsada Police Station Dharsiwan District- Raipur (C.G.) (Bolero Pick Up Kramank C G 04 P N - 9015 Ka Driver) SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.07.02 10:59:25 +0530 2 2 - Mithlesh Kumar Sahu S/o Madhav Ram Sahu R/o Ward No 7 Schoolpara Village Ninowa Police Station And Tahsil Dharsiwa District- Raipur (C.G.) (Bolero Pick Up Kramank C G 04 Pn 9015 Ka Owner) 3 - Magma H D I General Insurance Company Limited First Floor Pujari Complex Block No A-1 Dharam Nagar Tagore Nagar Mathpuraina District- Raipur (C.G.) (Bolero Pick Up Kramank C G 04 P N 9015 Ka Insurance Company ) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None present (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 30/06/2026 Heard. The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the learned Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 451 of 2026, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners seeking premature withdrawal of the amount kept in Fixed Deposits has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were the claimants in Claim Case No. 976 of 2024 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The claim petition was amicably settled and came to be decided on the basis of compromise by award dated 13.09.2025, whereby a total compensation of 3 ₹62,00,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants. Under the said award, petitioner No.1- Smt. Durgesh Yadav, was awarded a sum of ₹22,00,000/-; petitioner No.2-Sougat Yadav was awarded ₹20,00,000/-; and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 namely, Samaru Ram Yadav and Smt. Shakun Bai Yadav, were awarded ₹10,00,000/- each. In terms of the award, out of the amount payable to petitioner No.1, a sum of ₹5,00,000/- was directed to be invested in a Fixed Deposit for a period of four years and another sum of ₹5,00,000/- for a period of six years, while the remaining amount of ₹12,00,000/- was ordered to be released by way of Account Payee Cheque. Insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, the compensation awarded in his favour was directed to remain invested in Fixed Deposit till he attains majority. Likewise, in the case of petitioner Nos.3 and 4, a sum of ₹5,00,000/- each was directed to be kept in Fixed Deposit for periods of three years and four years respectively, with the balance amount ordered to be released through Account Payee Cheques. 3. It is contended that the petitioners now require the amount lying in Fixed Deposits for construction of their residential house. It is further submitted that the petitioners are elderly persons with limited means, and the amount in Fixed Deposits is required to meet their financial needs and day-to-day expenses. On these grounds, they preferred an application before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking premature encashment of the Fixed Deposits. However, the said application came to be rejected by the impugned order. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioners be permitted to withdraw the amount prematurely. 4 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including the impugned order. 5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that substantial amounts had already been released to the petitioners pursuant to the award dated 13.09.2025. Petitioner No.1 Smt. Durgesh Yadav had received ₹12,00,000/-, whereas petitioner Nos.3 and 4 Samaru Ram Yadav and Smt. Shakun Bai Yadav had received ₹5,00,000/- each, by way of Account Payee Cheques. The learned Tribunal has recorded that despite receiving the aforesaid amounts, the petitioners failed to furnish any particulars or documentary material indicating the manner in which the amounts already released had been utilized. 6. The Tribunal has further observed that before seeking premature withdrawal of the amounts invested in Fixed Deposits, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to satisfactorily explain the expenditure incurred from the substantial sums already released in their favour. In the absence of any such explanation or supporting material, the Tribunal found no justification to permit premature encashment of the Fixed Deposits and consequently rejected the application. 7. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the submission of the counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to disclose or substantiate the utilization of the amounts already released to them pursuant to the award. No documentary evidence has been produced to establish the alleged financial necessity or the 5 requirement of funds for construction of a residential house. In the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, interference is warranted only where the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, jurisdictional error, perversity, or manifest miscarriage of justice. The order passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is based on due consideration of the material available on record and does not suffer from any such infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or perversity in the impugned order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the learned Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge