Ram Asre vs Hari Kishore Ray
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~126
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
% Date of decision: 21 August 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010393542026
+ CM(M) 1865/2026
RAM ASRE .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishal Arun , Ms. Rupali Panwar
& Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advs.
(thru VC)
versus
HARI KISHORE RAY .....Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
th
1. This petition has been filed assailing order dated 02 April 2026 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [‘ MACT/Tribunal ’], West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in MACT No.557/2021, whereby the application
filed by injured seeking pre-mature release of amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from
the Fixed Deposit was dismissed.
th
2. The MACT, vide judgment dated 5 April 2025, awarded
compensation of Rs.17,40,982/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from
the date of filing of the DAR. The respective insurers of both the offending
vehicles, which were held liable on account of composite negligence, were
directed to deposit the awarded amount in equal proportions.
3. As per the scheme directed by the MACT, a sum of Rs.3,40,982/- was
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 1865/2026 1/8
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:04:34
to be released, while an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- along with interest was
directed to be kept in FDRs of Rs.20,000/- each for a period of 1 month, 2
months, 3 months and so on and so forth.
4. An application was filed by appellant/applicant, Ram Asre , seeking
release of Rs.8,00,000/- since he had borrowed the said amount on interest
from his relatives and friends, who had taken possession of the title deed of
his property as security against the said loan. He stated that he owned a small
house and that, in the event the amount was not released, he would be
compelled to sell his house in order to repay the loan.
5. Despite the aforesaid facts being placed before it, the Tribunal
dismissed the application, rejecting the claimant's plea on the ground that
there was no documentary evidence to show that he had taken a loan of
Rs.8,00,000/- against his property. The Tribunal also noted that no bank
statement had been placed on record for proper appreciation of the
application. The MACT, therefore, held that “ since there is no verifiable
material, the application deserves rejection and stands dismissed ”.
6. The impugned order, needless to say, reflects a non-application of mind
and constitutes an overreach of the discretionary powers vested in the MACT
for the disbursal of compensation. The only appeal filed against the said award
is MAC App No.499/2025 , filed by the Insurance Company challenging the
th
finding relating to the right of recovery, in which notice was issued on 11
August 2025. The said appeal is pending; however, it does not affect any
aspect of the compensation awarded to the claimant.
7. It is pertinent to note that this Court is frequently besieged with
applications arising from orders passed by MACTs rejecting requests for
withdrawal of compensation. It is not within the remit of the MACT to
undertake a deep-dive investigation into the reasons furnished by a claimant,
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 1865/2026 2/8
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:04:34
in whose favour compensation has been awarded and against which award no
appeal has been preferred, for seeking release of the compensation.
th
8. Even previously in order passed on 30 July 2026 in CM (M)
1666/2026, this Court had stated as under:
“ 8. As an additional note, this Court notes yet again that
MACTs are holding their hands in releasing
compensation to the claimants, who are not only in a
genuine need of the same, but are also capable of
managing it well. The MACT has instead been directing
a MACAD scheme in such matters.”
9. In yet other matter in which there was a settlement between the parties
th
and an application was moved for premature release, by order dated 28 July
2026 in CM (M) 1635/2026, this Court noted as under:
“6. It is quite surprising that the MACT, despite having
benefit of the Pre-Sitting Lok Adalat settlement, chose to
be parsimonious and to release only 10% of the
awarded amount, while directing the remaining 90% to
be kept in an MACAD annuity. No rationale or reason
was provided in the impugned order for modifying what
had been agreed to by the parties before the Pre-Sitting
Lok Adalat. This exhibits a mechanical approach
frequently adopted by various MACTs in providing a
scheme for release of compensation, rather than
determining the impact of a truncated release on the
claimants. ”
10. Moreover, reliance can be placed on the decision of Supreme Court in
Kerala, SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176, wherein guidelines
were laid down for release and investment of compensation by the Tribunal.
The same are extracted as under:
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 1865/2026 3/8
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:04:34
“ 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)
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 1865/2026 4/8
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:04:34
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;
(vii) In all cases in which investment in long term
fixed deposits is made it should be on condition that
the Bank will not permit any loan or advance on the
fixed deposit and interest on the amount invested is
paid monthly directly to the claimant or his
guardian, as the case may be;
(viii) In all cases Tribunal should grant to the
claimants liberty to apply for withdrawal in case of
an emergency. To meet with such a contingency, if
the amount awarded is substantial, the Claims
Tribunal may invest it in more than one Fixed
Deposit so that if need be one such F.D.R. can be
liquidated. ”
(emphasis supplied)
11. Further, reliance can also made on the decision of Supreme Court in
A.V. Padma & Ors. v R. Venugopal & Ors (2012) 3 SCC 378, which relied
on the guidelines given in Susamma Thomas ( supra ) and stated that there
should be no reluctance for release of compensation which is otherwise
legitimately owed to the claimant. The relevant paragraphs are extracted as
under:
“ 8. Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 1865/2026 5/8
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:04:34
Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation
amount in long-term fixed deposit and to release even
the whole amount in the case of literate persons.
However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid
stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases
that the amount of compensation shall be invested in
long-term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and
mechanical approach without understanding and
appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the
case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in
the case of semi-literate and literate persons. It needs to
be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this
Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants,
particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose
amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious
grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to
mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while
considering an application seeking release of the
money.
9. The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals
to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on
its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases
when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being
frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance,
illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of
the amount of compensation in long-term fixed deposit
is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in
a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of
the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine
requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of
literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically
ordering investment of the amount of compensation in
long-term fixed deposit without recording that having
regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of
the society to which the claimant belongs or such other
considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct
such investment in the larger interests of the claimant
and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation
awarded to him. ”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 1865/2026 6/8
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:04:34
12. The Supreme Court stated that guidelines relating to investment of
compensation in long term fixed deposits were intended to safeguard the
interests of the claimants and not to be applied in a rigid, mechanical or
routine manner. The Tribunal is required to examine the application for
release on its own facts and circumstances and exercise judicial discretion
after considering the requirements of the claimant. It would be a travesty of
justice if claimants, who are seeking the money for whatever reasons, are
stopped from having the benefit of compensation and otherwise having to take
loan from other parties in order to manage their affairs.
13. It would also be apposite to note observations of the Supreme Court in
Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
th
W.P.(C) 534/2020 vide order dated 16 July 2024 has also examined the
contentions relating to release and stated that Rule 35 of the Central Motor
Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 gives ample discretion to Tribunal to
adopt an appropriate scheme. However, it is the Tribunal's discretion to decide
whether the amount is to be released in entirety or in part.
14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.
15. The prayer seeking release of Rs.8,00,000/- is allowed. It is directed
that a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, as a lump-sum amount, be released to the claimant
in his designated account within a period of two weeks from today, by
liquidating the requisite number of FDRs.
16. I n light of the guidelines laid down in Susamma Thomas ( supra ), the
petitioner, who worked as a balloon vendor and may be semi-literate, is
required to furnish an affidavit setting out the details of the property, the title
deed of which has been taken into possession against the loan, and further
stating that the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- shall be utilised for the purpose of
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 1865/2026 7/8
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:04:34
obtaining the release of the said title deed. The said affidavit shall be furnished
before the concerned MACT within a period of two weeks from the date of
this order. The release of the amount shall be subject to the filing of the
aforesaid affidavit.
17. A copy of this judgment be sent to concerned MACT for information.
18. A copy of this judgment be also sent to concerned bank for information
and compliance.
19. Needless to state, the balance amount shall continue to be retained in
terms of the earlier order.
20. This petition stands disposed of with above directions.
21. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
AUGUST 21, 2026/sm/zb
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 1865/2026 8/8
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:04:34