1 CGHC010363852026 2026:CGHC:40891 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1211 of 2026 Manoj Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Bajrang Lal Agrawal Aged About 44 Years R/o Mishra Cement House Ke Samne Urga, P.S. Urga, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Memchand Khunte S/o Kishnu Ram Khuntey R/o Village Kamrid (Tanaud), Tehsil- Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - New India Insurance Company Limited Sada Complex, T.P. Nagar, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 18/09/2026 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 29.06.2026 passed by learned Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba in MACT MJC (DJ/ADJ)/86/2026, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for premature withdrawal of the amount from the fixed deposit has been rejected. SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.09.18 17:47:16 +0530 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba in MACT Case No.75/2024, in which, by the award dated 17.09.2025, an amount of Rs.3,83,546/- has been awarded in his favor. Pursuant to the said award, the insurance company has deposited the amount including interest, however, out of total awarded amount, Rs.3,00,000/- was directed to be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the claimant for further period of three years in any nationalized bank. On the application made by the petitioner, vide order dated 09.04.2026, the Claims Tribunal has permitted the petitioner to withdraw Rs. 1,00,000/- from the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- which was kept in fixed deposit and presently Rs. 2,00,000/- have been kept in fixed deposit which the petitioner wants to withdraw. He would submit that the petitioner is the owner of that amount which has been awarded in his favor and the amount cannot be kept in fixed deposit as the petitioner is literate person and acquainted with his well-being. Keeping the amount in fixed deposit is depriving him from use of his own amount. Yet, the learned Claims Tribunal has kept the amount in fixed deposit and has not permitted him to prematurely withdraw the amount. He would rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Padma and Others v. R. Venu Gopal and Others reported in (2012) 3 SCC 378. He would refer para 8 of the said judgment and would submit that the tribunal shall not insist on investment of the compensation amount in long-term fixed deposit and shall release the entire amount in favor of the claimant. The impugned order passed by learned Claims Tribunal rejecting his application is against the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of A.V. Padma, 3 therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and petitioner may be permitted to prematurely withdraw the entire amount kept in fixed deposit. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. It is not in dispute that vide award dated 17.09.2025, an amount of Rs. 3,83,546/- was awarded in favor of the petitioner. However, the petitioner could not demonstrate as to what is the amount which has been deposited by the insurance company alongwith the interest. From perusal of the impugned award, it transpires that the Claims Tribunal has found the petitioner capable of 87% and his partial disability has been assessed only to the extent of 13% and accordingly, the amount has been awarded in his favor. It further transpires from the order sheet dated 29.06.2026 that vide order dated 09.04.2026, Rs. 1,00,000/- was permitted to be prematurely withdrawn by the petitioner for his treatment. However, this Court do not find any relevant documents with respect to either his treatment or expenditure of the said amount which has already been withdrawn by the petitioner or any other requirement for which the amount is being permitted for prematurely withdrawal. Except for the impugned order, copy of the award, application made before the learned Claims Tribunal for premature withdrawal and copy of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of A.V. Padma (supra), no other documents has been annexed in the petition to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that he is required the amount for any purpose. 6. True it is that the petitioner is the owner of the amount awarded in his favour. However, while considering the manner in which the awarded 4 amount is to be disbursed, the Court is also required to ensure that the compensation is not misutilised and that the interest of the claimant is adequately safeguarded. It is not an invariable rule that the entire awarded amount must, in every case, be released to the claimant in cash. The mode and manner of disbursement may appropriately be regulated having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. 7. In the present case, there is no material or document on record demonstrating any immediate or specific financial need of the claimant/petitioner which would justify the release of the entire awarded amount in cash. In the absence of any such material, the order passed by the learned Claims Tribunal cannot be said to suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit