Dismissed¶26

Kalli Begam Mansuri v. Mahendra kUMAR Gurjar

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jan 2026WP227/1366/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Premature withdrawal of motor-accident compensation fixed deposit refused; National Lok Adalat settlement Rs. 13,30,000/- (Oriental Insurance Co.); III Additional MAC Tribunal, Raipur, Claim Case No. 607/2025 rejection upheld as just and proper; absence of bills/receipts evidencing utilisation of cash portion of award; WP227 No. 1366 of 2025, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, decided 06.01.2026; Gujarat High Court R/Special Civil Application No.13772 of 2022 (Bipinchandra Babulal Thakkar v. Govindbhai M Prajapati) distinguished.

What did the court decide?

None; the impugned order was left undisturbed. ¶26

Kalli Begam Mansuri Vs Mahendra kUMAR Gurjar — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the impugned order was left undisturbed.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners were entitled to a direction for withdrawal of the Rs. 06,65,000/- kept in fixed deposit, notwithstanding the Tribunal's rejection of their application, given their claimed poverty, dilapidated ancestral house and stalled repair work.

¶19

Court's answer

Since the petitioners could not establish where the money already received (half the award, paid in cash) had been utilized, or that the house requiring repair work was indeed their own — filing no bill or receipt, and photographs that did not demonstrate the repairs pertained to their house alone — the Tribunal's order rejecting their withdrawal request was just and proper.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The Gujarat High Court decision relied upon by the petitioners' counsel does not fit the fact situation of the present case, and therefore the petitioners cannot derive any benefit from it.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput), Order In Chamber dated 06.01.2026 in WP227 No. 1366 of 2025: parents of a road-accident victim, having received Rs. 13,30,000/- as a National Lok Adalat settlement with the Oriental Insurance Company (50% in cash, 50% in a three-year fixed deposit), challenged the order dated 04.09.2025 of the III Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 607/2025 rejecting their application for withdrawal of the deposited Rs. 06,65,000/- for repairs to their claimed dilapidated ancestral house (stated cost Rs. 10,10,100/-). Finding that the petitioners filed no bill or receipt showing where the cash already paid had been spent, and that their photographs did not demonstrate the repairs pertained to their house alone, the court held the Tribunal's rejection 'just and proper'; the Gujarat High Court decision in Bipinchandra Babulal Thakkar v. Govindbhai M Prajapati (R/Special Civil Application No.13772 of 2022, decided 02.08.2022), relied on by their counsel, was held not to fit the fact situation. Petition dismissed; impugned order left undisturbed.

2026:CGHC:738

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 1366 of 2025

¶6

1. Kalli Begam Mansuri W/o Shri Munauwar Mansuri, aged about 45 years Permanent Residents of Village and Post Parsawar, Tehsil Sihawal, District Sidhi (M.P.) Presently Residing At Gaji Nagar, Birgaon, Police Station Urla, DistrictRaipur (C.G.)

¶7

2. Munauwar Baks Mansuri S/o Shri Surdas Mansuri. aged about 48 years Permanent Residents of Village and Post Parsawar, Tehsil Sihawal, District Sidhi (M.P.) Presently Residing At Gaji Nagar, Birgaon, Police Station Urla, DistrictRaipur (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

1. Mahendra Kumar Gurjar S/o Jagnarayan Gurjar R/o Bajwasi, P.S. Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

¶11

2. Vinod Kumar S/o Jagdish Prasad R/o B-311, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶12

3. Mohammad Hussain S/o Munauwarbaks R/o Kesari Transport Corporation, Ring Road No. 2, Near Gupta Steel, Gogaon, Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

4. M/s Kesari Transport Corporation Through Manager/director Rajesh Kumar Rajput, R/o Janta- 248, Tilak Nagar, P.S. And P.O. Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

5. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No. 03, Ring Road No. 1, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur (C.G.)

¶15

		... Respondents
For Petitioners	: Shri Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For Respondents	: None

¶16

¶17

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶18

Order In Chamber dated 06.01.2026

¶19

This petition has been filed against the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by III Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Raipur, CG in Claim Case No. 607/2025 rejecting the application of the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents/authorities for withdrawal of Rs. 06,65,000/- kept in fixed deposit in Punjab National Bank, Collectorate Branch, Raipur.

¶20

Facts in short: The petitioners filed a Claim Case seeking compensation for the death of their son in a road accident. On 14.12.2024 the matter was amicably settled between the petitioners and the respondent No. 5/Oriental Insurance Company for Rs. 13,30,000/- in National Lok Adalat. Out of the award amount, 50% was directed to be paid to the petitioners in cash and remaining 50% was directed to kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of three years, which was done accordingly.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are extremely poor, that they were depending upon the earning of their deceased son, that their ancestral house being in a dilapidate state is rendered unfit for habitation, that they are residing in a temporary structure, that the repair work had commenced in their house but due to lack of finances it has come to standstill. Being all this, the amount kept in Bank deposit is sought to be withdrawn by setting aside the order impugned. In support of his submissions, reliance is placed on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the matter of Bipinchandra Babulal Thakkar v. Govindbhai M Prajapati rendered on 02.08.2022 in R/Special Civil Application No.13772 of 2022 .

¶22

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record including the order impugned.

¶23

From the material available on record it is apparent that out of the total award amount of Rs. 13,30,000/-, the petitioners were already paid one half thereof

¶24

¶25

amounting to Rs. 06,65,000/- and the other half was kept in fixed deposit. Though the petitioners have shown the cost of repair work of their house as Rs. 10,10,100/-, not even a single document such as bill or receipt has been filed by them to show as to where the amount already paid to them has been spent. Of course, the petitioners have filed certain photographs but they do not demonstrate that the repair work sought to be carried out pertains to their house only. This apart, the amount paid in cash in the year end of 2024 cannot be said to be a meager one and it could have well been used for carrying out the repair work making the ancestral house fit for dwelling. Thus in the circumstances when the petitioners have not been able to establish as to where the money already received by them has been utilized, or whether the house requiring repair work is indeed their own, the order impugned rejecting their request appears to be just and proper. The order relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner referred to above does not fit in the fact situation of the present case, and therefore the petitioners cannot derive any benefit of that.

¶26