Partly allowed

Pooranmal Sharma Son of Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sharma v. Girraj Jat Son of Shri Narayan Jat

Rajasthan HC4 Nov 2025CW/7087/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought premature release of three FDRs deposited as compensation for their son's death. The Tribunal rejected the request. Relying on precedent, the Court partly allowed the petition, directing release of two FDRs (3 and 5-year tenure) while the 7-year FDR remained intact.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release two FDRs (Rs. 2,00,000 each for 3 and 5 years); 7-year FDR remains unaffected.

Pooranmal Sharma Son of Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sharma… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:44408]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7087/2025

¶4

Pooranmal Sharma Son Of Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sharma, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Ward No. -8, Tiwari Mohalla, Tevdi, Tehsil Virat Nagar, Jaipur.

¶5

Smt. Shakuntala Wife Of Shri Pooranmal, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Ward No. -8, Tiwari Mohalla, Tevdi, Tehsil Virat Nagar, Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Girraj Jat Son Of Shri Narayan Jat, Resident Of Padampura, Tehsil And District Chaksu, District Jaipur. (Driver Of Vehicle Roadway Bus No. RJ-27-PA- 5647)

¶9

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Limited, Through Chief Manager, Office Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, C-Scheme, Jaipur. (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Roadway Bus No. RJ-27-PA- 5647)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Bhanu Prakash Verma,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: -

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶13

Order

¶14

04/11/2025

¶15

This petition has been filed seeking following relief:-

¶16

"It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and the impugned order dated 11.03.2025 passed by Rajasthan State Co-operative Tribunal and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 01 Jaipur Metropolitan by which application filed by the applicantpetitioners for pre mature payment of 3 F.D.R. No. 0786187, 0786188 and 0786189, deposited in Indian Bank, amount Rs. 6,00,000/- in the name of

(2 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:44408]

[CW-7087/2025]

both the petitioners jointly in the matter has been rejected be quashed and set aside and further the learned Tribunal be directed to pay the above FDRs amount of applicant-petitioners in the larger interest of justice.

¶21

Any other order or directions which this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. "

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners makes a statement at bar that the Insurance Company has not filed any appeal against the award dated 22.03.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur Metropolitan First, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the learned 'Tribunal'). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to death of son of the petitioners in a road accident, a claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal, which was allowed in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal, whereby, the award of Rs.13,62,000/- was passed in favour of the petitioners. As per the said award, petitioners were given Rs.7,62,840/- in cash along with the interest and three FDRs of Rs.2,00,000/- each were ordered to be kept for the period of 3 years, 5 years and 7 years respectively, in favour of the petitioners.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that to meet the expenses for marriage of another son of the petitioners, they moved an application for premature release of the said FDRs, however, vide the impugned order dated 11.03.2025, the application for premature release of FDRs was dismissed by learned Tribunal. Learned counsel prays that the petitioners are in need of the entire amount kept in the FDRs, therefore, this

[2025:RJ-JP:44408]

[CW-7087/2025]

(3 of 5)

petition be allowed and the amount kept in the FDRs in favour of the petitioners be ordered to be released prematurely.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Salim Khan Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6611/2018) decided on 22.05.2018 .

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. 6. The Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Salim Khan (supra) held as follows:-

¶30

"By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner-claimant Salim Khan has approached this court with a prayer for directing release of the Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs.2,14,020/- in his name lying with the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, which was prepared in furtherance of the award dated 14.07.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Suratgarh.

¶31

Facts in brief are that the petitioner’s father Vinod Kumar passed away in an accident on 09.05.2009. Upon a claim application being filed by the claimants, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Suratgarh awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.23,70,320/- under the award dated 14.07.2015. The Single Bench of this court in an appeal preferred by the respondent modified the compensation amount to Rs.22,30,000/-. In furtherance of the award, a Fixed Deposit Receipt No.1080044 (A/c No.05423101000543) for a sum of Rs.2,14,020/- was prepared with the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Suratgarh Branch in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner upon gaining majority, filed an application before the Tribunal for release of the aforesaid FDR for his domestic needs and to repay the

(4 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:44408]

[CW-7087/2025]

mortgage loan taken by his mother for buying their house. Learned Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 01.05.2018 (Annex.5). Hence, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition with the above prayer.

¶36

Having heard and considered the submissions made by the petitioner, present in person, and after going through the material available on record, this court is of the firm opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner is justified. The petitioner received the claim pursuant to the death of his father and he needs the amount of compensation for earning his domestic need sand to repay the house loan and thus, he deserves the relief claimed for.

¶37

Thus, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 01.05.2018 (Annex.5) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Suratgarh is quashed. Learned Tribunal shall forthwith release the Fixed Deposit Receipt No.1080044 (A/c No.05423101000543) for a sum of Rs.2,14,020/- lying with the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Suratgarh Branch in the name of the petitioner after ascertaining his identity. The amount so released shall be credited into the petitioner’s savings bank account."

¶38

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the precedent law, this Court deems it appropriate to order that two FDRs of Rs.2,00,000/- each for the period of 3 years and 5 years in favour of the petitioners may be allowed to be released prematurely. However, the FDR of Rs.2,00,000/kept for the period of 7 years shall remain as it is.

¶39

Thus, in the light of the aforesaid judgment, the present petition is partly allowed. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur Metropolitan First, Jaipur is directed to release the two FDRs of Rs.2,00,000/- each for the period of 3 years and 5 years

(5 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:44408]

[CW-7087/2025]

respectively in favour of the petitioners, however, the FDR of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of petitioners, kept for the period of 7 years shall remain as it is.

¶44

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶45

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶46

Mohita /153

Pooranmal Sharma Son of Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sharma v. Girraj Jat Son of Shri Narayan Jat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooranmal Sharma Son of Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sharma v. Girraj Jat Son of Shri Narayan Jat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rameshwar Lal S/O Guni Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganpati Construction Company Vs State of Rajasthan

Shakur Kathat C/O Nathu Kathat Vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Babu Kathat S/O Heera Katha Vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Mahendra Singh S/O Late Shri Shiv Chand Luniya Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rupam Pachar S/O Shri Tarun Singh Vs State of Rajasthan