1 CGHC010273292026 2026:CGHC:32139 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 914 of 2026 Smt. Anjani Pal W/o Late Shri Rupsingh Pal Aged About 36 Years R/o Village And Post Sarda, Tehsil And Police Station Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Vardhman Sahu S/o Shri Ramu Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village And Post Sarda, Tehsil And Police Station Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) (Driver Of Vehicle No. Cg 25 L 1286) 2 - Ramu Sahu S/o Late Shri Ganpat Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village And Post Sarda, Tehsil And Police Station Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) (Owner Of Vehicle No. Cg 25 L 1286) 3 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Address 2nd Floor, Simran Tower, Opposite Life Insurance Office, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Vehicle No. Cg 25 L 1286) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 27/07/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 19.06.2026 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara in Miscellaneous Case No. 87/2026, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for premature release of the amount from her fixed deposit 2 has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the award dated 27.06.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara in MACT Case No. 113/2023, a total amount of Rs. 21,46,160/- has been awarded as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum. Out of the total compensation awarded to the claimants, the petitioner was held entitled for 40% of the awarded amount and when the insurance company has deposited the amount of compensation, total of Rs. 9,62,908/- has been paid to the petitioner towards 40% of the total awarded amount. Out of the said amount, an amount of Rs. 7,14,326/- has been kept in fixed deposit at Punjab National Bank for the further period of three years which has been deposited on 23.10.2024. The petitioner filed an application before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for premature withdrawal of the amount which has been kept in fixed deposit in her name, however, the said application has been dismissed by the learned Claims Tribunal by holding that there is discrepancies in the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence produced by the petitioner with respect to the agreement to purchase the land for which the petitioner sought for premature release of the amount. He would further submit that only the amount of Rs. 2,48,582/- was paid to the petitioner in cash in the year 2024 and the remaining amount was kept in fixed deposit and for her livelihood, she wanted to purchase the land from one Sukhiram and an agreement was executed on 25.05.2026. The petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as an advance amount and the remaining amount of Rs. 7,10,000/- is to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed, and therefore, she is required the amount to be released 3 prematurely for purchase of the land, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner may be allowed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the application as well as the copy of agreement filed by the petitioner (Annexure P-4) and the statements recorded before the learned Claims Tribunal (Annexure P-5), it transpires that there is material discrepancies in the amount of advance allegedly paid by the petitioner to the seller of the land. In the agreement (Annexure P-4), the petitioner has allegedly paid Rs. 5,00,000/- as an advance amount to the seller of the land, however, the seller of the land Sukhiram has stated in his statement annexed at page No. 48 of the petition that he received Rs. 6,00,000/- from the petitioner as an advance amount. It further transpires that there is no any cut-off date for registration of the sale deed pursuant to the agreed land. These discrepancies have been considered by the learned trial Court and has rejected the application. From perusal of the material annexed with the petition, I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his/her prayer before the learned Claims Tribunal with correct facts and relevant documents. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit