Nit Kumar Parthi Vs Anil Kumar Jigyasi

1 - Anil Kumar Jigyasi S/o Late Laxman Das Aged About 31 Years R/o Nehru Nagar, Nagar Panchayat Bodri, Bilaspur (C.G.), (Details Have Been Taken From Ann. P/3)

¶10

2 - Kuber Singh S/o Late Ramesh Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o Gondpara, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Through - Branch Manager, Office Residence - Galaxy Heights, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Adv. on behalf of Shri Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate

¶14

({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

23/09/2025

¶17

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been

¶18

2

¶19

filed challenging order dated 21/11/2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in MJC No.458/2024. By the impugned order, the application of the petitioner to disburse the compensation deposited in fixed deposit was rejected.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the son of the petitioner died in an unfortunate accident and thereafter, claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur. The said application was partly allowed and compensation of Rs.1209360/- with 9% interest was awarded in favour of the petitioner herein and his wife vide its award dated 13/04/2023 in Motor Accident Claim Case No.863/2021. He further submits that in the award itself, the apportionment of 50% was made in favour of the petitioner herein and his wife, out of which, only Rs.1,50,000/- each was directed to be disbursed and the remaining amount was directed to be deposited in the fixed deposit in the name of petitioner and his wife for a period of 3 years. He submits that after the award was passed, the petitioner and his wife preferred an appeal before this Court for enhancement of compensation which is pending consideration in MAC No.1504/2023. He submits that during this period, wife of the petitioner who was also a claimant died on account of Cancer for which, the petitioner spent huge amount by borrowing money from relatives and other sources for treatment due to which he is in dire need of money to pay the bills of treatment and repay the loans. Therefore, an application for pre-mature withdrawal of fixed deposit made in the name of wife of the petitioner was moved but the same was rejected vide impugned order by the learned Tribunal only on the ground that original record was not available with it. Therefore it is prayed that this writ petition may be allowed.

¶21

Perusal of application made before the learned Tribunal does not indicate as to how much money is required by the petitioner for the purposes of payment of bills. Only it has been mentioned that the deceased claimant was his wife and he is entitled to receive the premature withdrawal of the fixed deposit.

¶22

Be that as it may, this Court at this stage is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, however, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to make detailed application before the learned Claims Tribunal for premature

¶23

3

¶24

disbursement of the fixed deposit made in the name of his deceased wife along with necessary documents to substantiate the pleadings. The said application be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is expected that the learned Claims Tribunal would decide the same in accordance with law preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of its presentation. It is also observed that the learned Tribunal would also adhere to the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas (mrs) and others reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176.

¶25

With this observation, the petition is disposed off.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

({Sachin Singh Rajput})

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Deepti

¶30

Digitally
signed by
DEEPTI
DEEPTI HARIKUMAR
HARIKUMAR Date:
2025.09.26
11:01:08
+0530

Nit Kumar Parthi v. Anil Kumar Jigyasi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nit Kumar Parthi v. Anil Kumar Jigyasi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

I.S. Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Manju Tripathi Vs District Co-Operative Central Bank Maryadt, Rajnandgaon

Budhram Kashyap Vs District Judge North Baster Kanker

Yash Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Ku.Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Govind Saheb Banjare, Vs State of Chhattisgarh