1 CGHC010361342026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1234 of 2026 1 - Smt. Hirmoti Sahu W/o Late Setram Sahu Aged About 39 Years Occupation - Housewife, R/o Village Churupali, Post Sohagpur, Tehsil Pithora, Police Station Tendukona, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Shri Devcharan Sahu S/o Late Setram Sahu Aged About 27 Years Occupation - Nil, R/o Village Churupali, Post Sohagpur, Tehsil Pithora, Police Station Tendukona, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Dinesh Shukla S/o Umesh Shukla R/o Village Khairjhiti, Post Jamgaon, Police Station Phingeshwar, District Gariaband (C.G.). Owner of Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C.G.-06/ G.Z.-8256. 2 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Manager, Krishna Complex, Kachhari Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). Insurer of Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C.G.-06/ G.Z.-8256. 3 - Naveen Sen @ Dablu S/o Kamlesh Sen R/o Village Baraunda Bazar, Ward No.3, Police Station, Tehsil and District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 25/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 27.07.2026, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in M.J.C. No. H- VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.09.29 17:36:37 +0530 2 114/2026, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for premature withdrawal of the amount, which had been kept in fixed deposits in their name, has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are the claimants before the learned Claims Tribunal. An award was passed in their favour on 13.12.2025 with respect to the compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- in favour of the petitioners/ claimants as well as the other claimant also namely Mantori Sahu. The learned Tribunal has held that from the total amount of compensation i.e. Rs.16,00,000/- the petitioner No.1 Heermoti was entitled for Rs.8,00,000/-, petitioner No.2 Devcharan Sahu was entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith the accrued interest. It was also directed by the learned Claims Tribunal that out of the total amount of their entitlement, Rs.4,00,000/- it to be kept in fixed deposits for three years in the name of petitioner No.1 and an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- is to be fixed deposited in the name of petitioner No.2 for three years in any Nationalized Bank. He further submits that the said amount was deposited by the Insurance Company and the ordered amount has been received by the claimants. Since the claimants were in need of some more amount for marriage of their son Devcharan, they made expenditure of the expenses incurred in the marriage ceremony, after obtaining loan from their relatives and other well wisher which, they have to repay the said amount, for which, premature withdrawal amount was necessitated. He would further submit that earlier, the petitioners have made an application before the learned Claims Tribunal which was rejected vide order dated 25.04.2026, thereafter again they moved an another application, in which they disclosed that they borrowed the amount from the relatives and other well wishers, but the learned Claims 3 Tribunal has rejected the said application by observing that the petitioners have not disclosed the details of the borrowed amount that from whom, and how much the amount has been borrowed by them. It has also been observed that the petitioners are having agricultural land and they have not disclosed their source of income. Further the learned Claims Tribunal observed that earlier Rs.6,50,000/- have already been disbursed to the petitioners pursuant to the award dated 13.12.2025 and the petitioners have failed to explain their requisite necessity for premature withdrawal of the amount, thus rejected the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioners have their obligation to re-pay the amount, which has been incurred in the marriage ceremony of their son Devcharan, therefore, they may be permitted to premature the withdrawal of amount which has been kept in fixed deposit in their name. In support of his submission he relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V.Padma & Ors Vs R. Venugopal & Ors reported in AIR online 2012 SC 530 and judgment passed by Allahabad High Court dated 26.02.2024 in case of Aidal Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors reported in 2024 SCC Online All 455 neutral citation No.2024 AHC 32874. 4. I have learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Claims Tribunal it transpires that earlier also petitioners have filed their application for premature withdrawal of amount showing their necessity of Rs.9,00,000/- for marriage ceremony of their son Devcharan. After rejection of the said application, they again moved another application showing their necessity of Rs. 7,00,000/-. 4 Further the learned Claims Tribunal has observed in its order that pursuant to the award dated 13.12.2025, amount of Rs.6,50,000/- has already been paid to the petitioners for which there is no account submitted by petitioners. They are having agricultural land and they have also not disclosed any income from it. Further that the petitioners are residing in the joint family having their other children and also that they have not disclosed the details of the amount of loan which they allegedly borrowed from their relatives or other well wishers. Considering that the petitioners have failed to established their requirement necessity for premature withdrawal of the amount, which has been kept in fixed deposits in their names, their application has been rejected. 6. After having perusal of the entire material produced in the writ petition, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order as there is no any documents submitted by the petitioners except the marriage card, which has already been filed before the learned Claims Tribunal, even they failed to demonstrate about the persons from whom the amount has been borrowed. 7. The judgment cited above by the counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable in the facts of the present case and no benefit could be extended to them by those judgments. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Vaishali