Premature release of compensation funds from fixed deposits requires proof of bona fide necessity and disclosure of prior disbursements.

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 02/04/2026 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Durg

Following a motor accident claim (Case No. 304/2021), an award of Rs. 39,67,583/- was passed on 03/11/2023

The petitioner, being one of the children of the deceased, was apportioned a 25% share, out of which Rs. 11,65,252/- was placed in a Fixed Deposit (FD) for five years starting 20/02/2024

The petitioner sought premature release of the FD amount to fund his marriage scheduled for 26/04/2026.

The MACT rejected the application, holding that compensation funds should be preserved and marriage does not automatically warrant premature release

1. Whether the petitioner established a bona fide or genuine need for the premature withdrawal of the compensation amount kept in a Fixed Deposit

2. Whether the high court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the Tribunal's discretionary order

The court applied the principles governing the management of compensation awards under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically focusing on the judicial duty to secure the long-term utilization of compensation and prevent the misuse or "frittering away" of funds awarded to claimants

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which grants High Courts supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and tribunals but limits interference to cases of patent illegality or jurisdictional error.

The Court observed that while the petitioner cited his marriage as a "genuine need," he failed to provide material disclosures regarding the total compensation package.

Specifically, the petitioner did not disclose when the cash component of the award was received or how those funds were expended

In the absence of evidence accounting for the cash already disbursed, the Court could not conclude that the request for premature withdrawal was bona fide

The Court emphasized that the primary purpose of FD mandates by Claims Tribunals is to secure the survivors' future financial stability following the death of a family member

Consequently, the petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary burden required to override the Tribunal’s protective measures.

The Court dismissed the writ petition, thereby upholding the Tribunal's decision to maintain the Fixed Deposit in its original form to ensure the long-term security of the compensation amount