Allowed¶29

Smt Sarwati and Another v. Presiding Officer and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2026WRIC/14208/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ-C 14208 of 2026; Allahabad High Court; Vikas Budhwar, J.; MACT Gautam Buddh Nagar; release of fixed deposit; compensation Rs. 6,50,800/-; award dated 9.7.2024 attained finality; no minor's interest; purchase of land; construction of house; mechanical fixed deposit investment impermissible; Rakesh Sharma Writ-C No. 15939 of 2021; Arun Kumar Srivastava; A V Padma; Dinesh Writ-C No. 28541 of 2022; certiorari; mandamus; order dated 31.5.2025 set aside; remand for fresh order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 31.5.2025 set aside; matter remitted to the authority for a fresh order in accordance with law within three months. ¶29

Smt Sarwati and Another vs Presiding Officer and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 31.5.2025 set aside; matter remitted to the authority for a fresh order in accordance with law within three months.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the award dated 9.7.2024 has attained finality and, if so, whether the petitioners' claim for release of the entire awarded compensation (including the fixed deposit residue) deserves consideration.

¶23

Court's answer

From the award itself it is not forthcoming that any interest of a minor is involved; both claimants are before the Court and their grievance for purchasing land and constructing a house appears genuine, so their claim merits consideration.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 31.5.2025 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Application No. 91 of 2025, MAC No. 239 of 2019 is set aside.

¶28

Key takeaways

The matter is remitted back to the authority to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law within three months from production of certified copy of the order, unless there is any legal impediment.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikas Budhwar, J.) allowed the writ petition of Smt Sarwati (widow of deceased Babu Lal) and her son against the order dated 31.5.2025 of the Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gautam Buddh Nagar rejecting their Application No. 91 of 2025 for release of the entire awarded compensation of Rs. 6,50,800/- (MAC No. 239 of 2019, award dated 9.7.2024), out of which only Rs. 5 lakh stood released with the residue kept in fixed deposit. The Court held that the only question was whether the award had attained finality; finding no minor's interest involved on the face of the award and the claimants' need to purchase land and construct a house genuine, and considering the passage quoted from Rakesh Sharma (Writ-C No. 15939 of 2021) on the impermissibility of mechanically directing investment of compensation in fixed deposit, it set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for a fresh order in accordance with law within three months.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 14208 of 2026

¶3

Smt Sarwati And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Presiding Officer And 3 Others	.....Respo
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Dev Kaushik
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Court No. - 5

¶9

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

¶10

Supplementary affidavit, filed today by learned counsel for the petitioners, is taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶12

In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the respondents.

¶13

The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶14

" (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.5.2025 passed by respondent No.1;

¶15

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding, directing the respondent no.1 to release the F.D.R. amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of the petitioners/claimants. "

¶16

The case of the petitioners, who are two in number, is that petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased Babu Lal and petitioner No.2 is the son of the deceased Babu Lal. On account of death of the husband of writ petitioner No.1 and the father of petitioner No.2 on 3.7.2018, a Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 239 of 2019 (Smt. Sarwati and another vs. Kaushar Khan and others) came to be instituted before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gautam Buddh Nagar in which an award came to be passed on 9.7.2024 by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gautam Buddh Nagar, awarding a compensation of an amount of Rs. 6,50,800/- along with

¶17

WRIC No. 14208 of 2026

¶18

¶19

interest out of which only Rs. 5 Lakh was released and the residue was to be invested as a fixed deposit, having maximum interest.

¶20

According to the petitioners the said award has attained finality and an application bearing No. 91 of 2025 came to be preferred for release of the entire amount, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioners had purchased a land and there was certain amount in residue which could only be satisfied, provided the amount stood released. The said application came to be rejected by Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gautam Buddh Nagar on 31.5.2025. Questioning the same the present petition has been preferred.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners has sought to argue that in view of the glaring considerations which weighs with the authority while rejecting the claim cannot be sustained for a simple reason that the amount in question which is to be released is required to be released on urgent basis, as the property is being purchased, particularly when there is no roof over the petitioners. Reliance has been placed upon judgement of a coordinate Bench in Writ-C No. 28541 of 2022 (Dinesh vs. Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gautam Buddh Nagar and others).

¶22

I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the records carefully.

¶23

The only question which would arise would be whether the award has attained finality or not. In case there is any challenge to the award, then the provision is otherwise and in case it is still in existence, then the provision would be that consideration can be made with regard to the claim of the petitioner. Plainly and simply from the award itself, it is not forthcoming that any interest of the minor is involved. Further, both the claimants are petitioners, who have preferred the present petition and the grievance appears to be genuine for constructing the house in that regard by purchasing land. Paragraph No. 10 of Rakesh Sharma vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and others, Writ-C No. 15939 of 2021 decided on 26.8.2021, is being quoted herein under:-

¶24

"10. This Court in Arun Kumar Srivastava (supra), held thus:

¶25

WRIC No. 14208 of 2026

¶26

¶27

"8. It is clear from the above enunciation of law by the Supreme Court that in case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to direct investment of compensation amount in long term fixed deposit. The Tribunal has to deal with each case on its own facts. It cannot impose condition for investment of the compensation amount in Fixed Deposit of Nationalised Bank in a mechanical manner in each and every case being decided by it. In the case under consideration by the Supreme Court (A V Padma), the Supreme Court found that the first claimant was an educated lady who retired as Superintendent of the Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and the second claimant was a M.Sc. degree holder and the third claimant was also holding Master Degree in Commerce and Philosophy. One of the claimant was 71 years of age. She required money for maintenance of her house and for raising further constructions to provide dwelling place for her second daughter. The daughter was residing in a rented house and paying exorbitant rent. The Supreme Court held that the claimants were entitled to withdraw the entire amount and issued directions accordingly."

¶28

Considering the said aspect of the matter the order dated 31.5.2025, passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Application No. 91 of 2025, MAC No. 239 of 2019, is set aside.

¶29

11. The writ petition is allowed .

¶30

The matter stands remitted back to the authority to pass a fresh order, strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, until and unless, there is any legal impediment.

¶31

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶32

May 7, 2026 Vandana

¶33

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Sarwati and Another v. Presiding Officer and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sarwati and Another v. Presiding Officer and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Milan Singh Tomar and 2 Others vs Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and 2 Others

Salik Ram Yadav vs Shri Ankith Shukla, Sub Divisional Magistrate Sarojni Nagar Lko. and Another

Ved Prakash Saroj and 12 Others vs Bhupendra Singh Distt. Basic Education Officer Pratapgarh

Master Atharv Nigam vs Sh Nitin Nigam and Another

Shama Masood vs Zafar Khan and 6 Others

Amrendra Kumar Singh and Another vs Union of India and Another