Dismissed¶33

Shitla Nishad v. Rajendra Singh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Feb 2025WP227/133/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; WP227 No. 133 of 2025; Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey; minor accident claimant; release of fixed deposit from compensation; National Lok Adalat compromise award Rs. 15,00,000; Claim Case No. 905 of 2022; artificial hand/prosthesis; right hand amputated from shoulder; natural guardian/mother's application; Tribunal order dated 24.10.2024 upheld; premature withdrawal denied; welfare of minor; petition dismissed on 10.02.2025; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

It would not be just and proper to release the amount allotted to the fixed deposit: the minor petitioner has a long life ahead, and if the entire award amount is spent it would be very difficult for him to get financial assistance at a later stage; his mother may instead approach NGOs or other institutions for medical support. ¶31

Shitla Nishad Vs Rajendra Singh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

-1-

¶2

Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH

¶3

2025:CGHC:7188

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WP227 No. 133 of 2025

¶7

1 - Shitla Nishad Aged About 8 Years Through Representative Minor Mother Rajkumari Nishad, R/o Village Medpar, Police Station - Hirri, Tahsil - Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Rajendra Singh S/o Dhan Bahadur Singh R/o Village - Dubi, Post - Rampur, Tahsil - Naigarhi, District - Riwa Madhya Pradesh (Owner Of The Vehicle Bus No. C.G.-04-E-8733)

¶11

2 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through - Branch Manager, Branch Office 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Centre, In Front Of Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Police Station - City Kotwali, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Vehicle Bus No. C.G.-04-E-8733)

¶12

3 - Khagendra Singh @ Munna S/o Padamdhar Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bargawan, Tahsil - Naigarh, District Riwa Madhya Pradesh (Driver Of The Vehicle Bus No. C.G.-04-E-8733)

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Kesharwani, Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

-2-

10.02.2025

Heard.

1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶21

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record relating to the petitioner's case.

¶22

10.2 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by 8th Upper District Judge and further be pleased to order to release the amount as prayed as earlier as possible.

¶23

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to the petitioner.”

¶24

2) The facts of the present case are that a compromise award was passed in Claim Case No.905 of 2022 in the National Lok Adalat on 16.12.2023 whereby, an award of Rs.15,00,000/- was passed in favour of the minor petitioner. 50% amount of the award was deposited in the fixed deposit account and the remaining 50% was deposited in the savings bank account of the minor. The mother of the petitioner/natural guardian moved an application for the release of Rs.7,50,000/- deposited in a fixed deposit on the ground that she has no sufficient funds to get the artificial hand for the petitioner as in the accident his right hand was amputated from shoulder. It was also stated that Rs.7,50,000/- deposited in a savings account has already been spent.

¶25

3) Learned Tribunal vide order dated 24.10.2024 rejected the application

¶26

-3-

¶27

on the ground that the petitioner is a minor and he will not receive the benefit of the award if at this stage the application is allowed.

¶28

4) Mr. Kesharwani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has to approach the medical institution or medical expert to get artificial hand of her son and it requires a huge amount, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the application.

¶29

5) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at length and also perused the documents on record.

¶30

6) Admittedly, an award of Rs.15,00,000/- was passed in favour of the petitioner on 16.12.2023. Rs.7,50,000/- was allotted in a fixed deposit account whereas Rs.7,50,000/- was deposited in the savings account. The natural guardian of the petitioner has already spent Rs.7,50,000/within a period of one year and an application has been moved for the withdrawal of the entire amount of fixed deposit.

¶31

7) Admittedly, the petitioner is a minor aged about 8-9 years. Rs. 7,50,000/- deposited in the savings account has already been spent. The petitioner has a long life ahead and if the entire award amount is spent, it would be very difficult for him to get financial assistance at a later stage. The mother of the petitioner may approach the NGOs or other institutions to get medical support and it would not be just and proper to release the amount allotted to the fixed deposit. Therefore,

¶32

-4-

¶33

in my opinion, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the application. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶36

Rekha

Shitla Nishad v. Rajendra Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shitla Nishad v. Rajendra Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Magma Housing Finance Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Avinash Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ayush Medical Association Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Leenashree Tiwari Vs Dinesh

Ajay Kashyap Vs Smt. Ganga Kashyap

Maheshwari Yadaw @ Chhoti Yadaw Vs Rajendra Singh