1 CGHC010297292026 2026:CGHC:36113 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1029 of 2026 Smt. Neeta Jain W/o Late Jainendra Jain Aged About 49 Years R/o Gitapahar, Post Gitpahar, P.S. And Tahsil Narharpur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Satam S/o Late Shri Ugraj Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Rampur Ward Dhamtari, Police Station, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Nirmaldas Manikpuri S/o Devdas Manikpuri Aged About 30 Years R/o Telipara Sunderganj, Ward Dhamtari, Police Station And Tahsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited In Front Of Lal Ganga Shopping Complex, G.E. Raod, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. , District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Punjab And Sind Bank Through His Branch Manager Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Branch Code 1086 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 13/08/2026 1. The present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.08.19 11:24:56 +0530 2 India, filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari in MJC No. 8/2026, whereby an application for premature withdrawal of the amount kept in fixed deposit in the name of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the award dated 13.12.2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 126/2018, an award of Rs. 38,41,250/- was passed in favour of the petitioner on 13.12.2019. Pursuant to the said award, 50% of the amount i.e. Rs. 21,25,425/- was paid to the petitioner in cash and remaining 50% of the amount Rs. 21,25,425/- was kept in fixed deposit for 5 years. On an application being made by the petitioner, Rs. 10 lakh was permitted to be prematurely withdrawn from the fixed deposits of the petitioner vide order dated 20.04.2022 and the remaining amount of Rs.12,77,737/- has been remained kept in fixed deposit since 18.06.2022 till 18.06.2027. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner is constructing/ renovating her house for which she earlier filed an application for premature withdrawal of the amount and the amount of Rs. 10 lakh was permitted to be withdrawn. However, the said amount was not sufficient and the labourers who were worked for renovation of the house of the petitioner had prosecuted her in the Labour Court for payment of their wages. Therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to prematurely withdraw the remaining amount of the award which has been kept in fixed deposit in her name. The learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the application by observing that the petitioner has not filed any utility certificate with respect to the amount which has been withdrawn by her earlier, therefore, no 3 bonafide has been shown by the petitioner for withdrawal of the amount kept in fixed deposit. The impugned order is erroneous as the petitioner is fully grown-up, matured lady, she knew her well-being, and therefore, there is no likelihood of any defraudation and she be permitted to utilize the amount which has been kept in fixed deposit. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the document annexed with the petition. 4. From perusal of the order sheet dated 09.03.2026, it transpires that at the time of disbursement of the amount of award, Rs. 21,25,425/- was paid to the petitioner in cash, and thereafter, vide order dated 20.04.2022, Rs. 10 lakh was permitted to be withdrawn from the amount kept in fixed deposit and thus, the observation of the learned trial Court is that the 75% of the awarded amount has already been withdrawn by the petitioner, however, she has not filed any utility certificate, as has been directed by the learned Claims Tribunal while permitting her for premature withdrawal of Rs.10 lakh from her fixed deposit. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the labourers are prosecuting the petitioner before the Labour Court for arrears of wages, however, there is no document annexed in the present writ petition to that effect that any proceeding is pending before the Labour Court with respect to the same subject matter. Therefore, I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Vaishali