[2026:RJ-JP:9595-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 195/2026 1. Mukesh Kumar Saini S/o Shri Madan Lal Saini, Aged About 69 Years, R/o 1301, Sangatrashan, Police Post Ke Pas, Paharganj, Swami Ram Tirth Nagar S.o. Central Delhi-110055 2. Smt Madhu Saini W/o Shri Mukesh Kumar, Saini, Aged About 66 Years, R/o 1301, Sangatrashan, Police Post Ke Pas, Paharganj, Swami Ram Tirth Nagar S.o. Central Delhi-110055 3. Abhinav Mukesh Saini S/o Shri Mukesh Saini, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 1301, Sangatrashan, Police Post Ke Pas, Paharganj, Swami Ram Tirth Nagar S.o. Central Delhi-110055 ----Appellants Versus 1. Rajnish S/o Shri Kishan Lal, R/o - Gram - Post- Kurahwata, District Mahendragarh, Haryana (Registered Owner Vehicle Truck No. - Hr-66-B-1072) 2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Office -C-18, First Floor, Tirupatim Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Policy Effective From Date 03.05.2019 To 02.05.2020 (Insurance Company Vehicle Truck No. Hr-66-B-1072) 3. Krishanlal Through Vehicle Swami Rajnish S/o Shri Kishan Lal, R/o - Gram - Post-Murahvata, District Mahendragarh, Hariyana (Vehicle Driver Truck No. - Hr-66-B-1072) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.M. Jain For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 06/03/2026 1. The challenge is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 07.01.2026, whereby he has allowed the writ petition filed by the appellants in part and released Rs.10,00,000/- from [2026:RJ-JP:9595-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-195/2026] the deposit lying in the first two FDRs prematurely, while retaining the other FDRs. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners submits that all four FDRs, which had been prepared from the compensation amount granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur to the writ petitioners should have been released, as the writ petitioners are in dire need of funds for the higher education of their son-petitioner No.3. 3. We find that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration all the aspects including the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has been cited before us, namely A.V. Padma and Ors. vs. R. Venugopal and Ors.: (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 378. Having reached to the conclusion that releasing Rs.10,00,000/- would meet the minimum requirements of the family, the petition has been allowed in part, and rest of the prayers have been declined at this stage. 4. Thus, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 5. All pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ LAKSHYA SHARMA /20