1 CGHC010281402026 2026:CGHC:32455 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 942 of 2026 1 - Ramkumar S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Badnara, Post - Badnara, Thana And Tehsil - Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Thageshwari W/o Shri Ramkumar Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Badnara, Post - Badnara, Thana And Tehsil - Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Santosh Kumar S/o Shri Lachchhuram Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Subhash Ward No. 3, Bhatapara, Tehsil - Bhatapara, Police Station - Bhatapara City, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle No. C G 22 V 6917) 2 - Bhupesh Dhar Diwan S/o Shri Ramkumar Diwan Aged About 57 Years R/o Mahavir Ward No. 4, Bhatapara (Currently R/o Shyamacharan Mukherjee Ward No. 1, Bhatapara), Tehsil Bhatapara, Police Station - Bhatapara City, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle No. C G 22 V 6917) 3 - S B I General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Address Pujari Chambers, 4th Floor, Pachpedi Naka, Near 2 Pujari Park, Dhamtari Road, N H 23, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C G 22 V 6917) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None present. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 28/07/2026 The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara in an unregistered MJC arising out of (Ramkumar and Another v. Santosh Kumar and Others), whereby the application preferred by the petitioners seeking premature release of the compensation amount kept in fixed deposit has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the award dated 13.09.2025 passed by the National Lok Adalat, Bench No.1, Bemetara in Claim Case No. 41/2025, the Insurance Company deposited a sum of ₹15,00,000/- towards compensation. Out of the said amount, ₹2,00,000/- was released to claimant No.1, ₹3,00,000/- to claimant No.2 and ₹50,000/- each to claimant Nos.3 and 4. The balance amount comprising ₹3,00,000/- in the name of claimant No.1 and ₹6,00,000/- in the name of claimant No.2 was directed to be invested in fixed deposits for a period of three years. 3 3. It is further submitted that the petitioners are in urgent need of the amount lying in fixed deposit for carrying out the renovation of their residential house. However, the learned Claims Tribunal rejected their application on the ground that no satisfactory documentary evidence establishing the necessity for renovation or the ownership of the house had been produced. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners had, in fact, placed on record a certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Badnara certifying that the house is in a dilapidated condition requiring immediate renovation, along with a floor plan prepared by a Civil Engineer. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the learned Claims Tribunal be directed to permit premature encashment of the amount lying in fixed deposit. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. 5. A perusal of the record reveals that a sum of ₹15,00,000/- was deposited in the names of the claimants on 25.10.2025. Out of the said amount, ₹2,00,000/- was released to claimant No.1 and ₹3,00,000/- to claimant No.2, while ₹3,00,000/- in the name of claimant No.1 and ₹6,00,000/- in the name of claimant No.2 were invested in fixed deposits for a period of three years. However, no material has been placed on record indicating the manner in which the amounts already released to the claimants have been utilized. 6. Though the petitioners have annexed a certificate dated 07.02.2026 issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Badnara 4 certifying that the residential house is in a dilapidated condition requiring renovation, along with a floor plan, no revenue records, photographs of the house, valuation report or any other cogent material substantiating the requirement of renovation have been placed on record. Furthermore, the floor plan itself does not disclose the date of its preparation or issuance. 7. The learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the petitioners' application primarily on the ground that they failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence in support of their claim. Upon consideration of the entire material placed on record, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error, perversity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner would be at liberty to revive his claim before the learned Claims Tribunal. In such eventuality, the learned Claims Tribunal shall decide the application so made by the petitioners, in accordance with law on its own merits. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.07.30 12:06:16 +0530