A petition challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's order dismissing a widow's application for premature release of compensation. The High Court held that structured disbursement is essential for the long-term security of widows, and no credible justification existed to release the lump sum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~38
JULI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aman Sharma & Mr. Chirag Sharma, Advs. along with petitioner in person.
versus
ROHIT & ORS. .....Respondents Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
O R D E R
% 20.02.2025 CM APPL. 10410/2025 ( exemption )
Page 1 of 5
CM(M) 354/2025
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/03/2025 at 12:25:27
the deceased, ₹5,50,000/- was awarded each in favour of the parents of the deceased. Out of the share of the petitioner, ₹5,50,000/- was ordered to be released in her favour, while the remaining ₹15,00,000- was kept in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD), to be disbursed in a phased manner i.e., ₹10,000/- in her MACT savings bank account.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/03/2025 at 12:25:27
misused, squandered, or lost due to financial imprudence, exploitation, or illiteracy. The relevant paragraph reads as under :
“ 23. In a case of compensation for death it is appropriate that the Tribunals do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this Court in Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India [(1991) 4 SCC 584] in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation. In that case approving the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(1982) 1 Guj LR 756] this Court offered the following guidelines: (Guj LR pp. 759-60)
“(i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor be invested in long term fixed deposits at least till the date of the minor attaining majority. The expenses incurred by the guardian or next friend may, however, be allowed to be withdrawn;
(ii) In the case of illiterate claimants also the Claims Tribunal should follow the procedure set out in (i) above, but if lump sum payment is required for effecting purchases of any movable or immovable property such as, agricultural implements, rickshaw, etc., to earn a living, the Tribunal may consider such a request after making sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money;
(iii) In the case of semi-literate persons the Tribunal should ordinarily resort to the procedure set out at (i) above unless it is satisfied, for reasons to be stated in writing, that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding and existing business or for purchasing some property as mentioned in (ii) above for earning his livelihood, in which case the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid;
(iv) In the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in (i) above, subject to the relaxation set out in (ii) and (iii) above, if having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensuring the safety of the compensation awarded to him thinks it necessary to do order; (v) In the case of widows the Claims Tribunal should invariably follow the procedure set out in (i) above;
(vi) In personal injury cases if further treatment is necessary the Claims Tribunal on being satisfied about the same, which shall be recorded in writing, permit withdrawal of such amount as is necessary for incurring the expenses for such treatment;…..”
CM(M) 354/2025
Page 3 of 5
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/03/2025 at 12:25:27
to be invested in long-term deposits. Lump sum withdrawal may only be permitted under exceptional circumstances and must be directly linked to the claimant’s livelihood or essential sustenance.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/03/2025 at 12:25:27
permitting such a release would defeat the very object of granting compensation in motor accident cases, which is to ensure longterm financial security and not to facilitate immediate investments in property.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
FEBRUARY 20, 2025
Page 5 of 5
CM(M) 354/2025
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/03/2025 at 12:25:27
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a widow claiming premature release of statutory accident compensation can bypass the MACAD scheme for property purchase.
Whether the lack of concrete proof regarding business venture or property acquisition validates the rejection of lump-sum withdrawal.
Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was justified in maintaining the structured disbursement to safeguard the widow's long-term financial security.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kerala, SRTC v. Susamma ThomasFollowed¶7
Kerala, SRTC v. Susamma Thomas : (1994) 2 SCC 176 · Who else cites this
Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of IndiaApplied¶26
Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India [(1991) 4 SCC 584] · Who else cites this
Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.Applied¶26
Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(1982) 1 Guj LR 756]
Juli
Rohit & Ors.
Amit Mahajan
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Amit Mahajan
Parties & counsel
