Dismissed

Amaldei Kashyap v. Bal Govind Yadav

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2026WP227/1198/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226/227 challenged the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which allowed only Rs. 1,00,000 to each petitioner for premature withdrawal of fixed deposits. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no perversity or jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision. The court noted the absence of revenue documents proving the need for renovation beyond the

What did the court decide?

The writ petition against the partial withdrawal order was dismissed.

Amaldei Kashyap Vs Bal Govind Yadav — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed SUMIT by SUMITKUMARDate: KUMAR 2026.09.1711:51:38 +0530

CGHC010357362026

2026:CGHC:40510

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WP227 No. 1198 of 2026

¶8

1 - Amaldei Kashyap W/o Late Hari Kashyap Aged About 60 Years Both Are R/o Jharumargaon, Nakagudapara, P. S. Kotwali, District Bastar C. G.

¶9

2 - Maniram Kashyap S/o Late Hari Kashyap Aged About 22 Years R/o Jharumargaon, Nakagudapara P. S. Kotwali, District Bastar C. G.

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Bal Govind Yadav S/o Late Dayaram Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Main Road Aanwra, Bhata, Dantewada P. S. Dantewada C. G. -----Premanet Address H No. 304, Ward, No. 15, Gudapara, Jaitgiri, P. S. Bakawand District Bastar C. G.

¶13

2 - Kishori Prasad Gupta, S/o Umesh Prasad Gupta, Aged About 65 Years R/o Taragaon P. S. Kodenga District Navarangpur Odisha,

¶14

3 - I F F C O Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager Subhash Super, Bazar Bodhghat Road Jagdalpur District Bastar C. G.

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate

¶17

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.)

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

16/09/2026

¶20

Heard.

¶21

Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 30.06.2026

¶22

¶23

passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Misc. Claim Case No.243/2026 whereby the application for premature withdrawal of the amount from the fixed deposits of the petitioners have been partly allowed and the learned Claims Tribunal has permitted for premature withdrawal of Rs.1,00,000/- for each of the petitioners from their fixed deposits.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the Claim Case No. 301/2025, vide award dated 14.03.2026 passed by National Lok Adalat, Bench No.-1, Bastar at Jagdalpur, an amount of Rs. 14,75,000/has been awarded in favour of the petitioners, out of which Rs.4,00,000/- - Rs.4,00,000/- have been directed to be deposited in the fixed deposits in nationalized bank for the period of 03 years and 05 years, respectively and the remaining amount was paid in cash. The amount which was kept in the fixed deposits is required for renovation of the house of the petitioners, for which the petitioners made an application before the learned Claims Tribunal for premature withdrawal of the amount, however, the learned Claims Tribunal permitted to withdraw only Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the petitioners on this ground. He would further submit that the amount permitted by the learned Claims Tribunal is insufficient for renovation of the old house of the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the entire amount of fixed deposits which are kept in their name in the bank as per the direction given by the National Lok Adalat in award dated 14.03.2026.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the document annexed with the petition.

¶26

¶27

Though, the petitioners are claiming for premature withdrawal of the amount from the fixed deposits kept in the bank on the ground that they are required for the said amount for renovation of their residential house. In support of their case, the petitioners have filed the resolution of the gram panchayat, Bakawand dated 09.05.2026 in which they resolved that the house of the petitioners is in dilapidated condition and it is not fit for residence. However, there is no any revenue documents or municipal documents have been filed by the petitioners to show that they actually have their house in their name or any estimate which is required for its renovation except for the panchayat resolution, no other documents have been annexed with the present writ petition.

¶28

Furthermore, it has been found that the award was passed on 14.03.2026 for Rs. 14,75,000/-. Out of this amount, Rs. 8,00,000/- was kept in fixed deposits in the petitioners' names and the remaining sum was directly paid to them, while Rs. 2,00,000/- from the deposited amount has been ordered for premature release vide the impugned order dated 30.06.2026 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in partly allowing the claim of the petitioners and partly rejecting the application.

¶30

Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶31

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE

¶32

Sumit

Amaldei Kashyap v. Bal Govind Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amaldei Kashyap v. Bal Govind Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases