Facts
The petitioners, claimants under a motor accident compensation award dated 13 December 2025, were awarded ₹8,00,000 and ₹5,00,000 respectively, with directions that ₹4,00,000 and ₹2,50,000 of their respective entitlements be kept in fixed deposits for three years
Source reference: para. 3They sought premature withdrawal, stating that they needed funds to repay amounts borrowed from relatives and well-wishers for their son’s marriage.
Source reference: no citationThe Tribunal rejected successive applications, noting that the petitioners had not accounted for the ₹6,50,000 already disbursed, established their income or agricultural resources, or provided details of the alleged loans.
Source reference: paras. 3, 5They challenged the Tribunal’s order dated 27 July 2026 under Article 227 of the Constitution
Source reference: para. 2Issues
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the Tribunal’s refusal to permit premature withdrawal of compensation held in fixed deposits
Source reference: paras. 2, 6Whether the petitioners established sufficient grounds for premature withdrawal by showing a need to repay amounts allegedly borrowed for their son’s marriage
Source reference: paras. 5–6Law Applied
Article 227 of the Constitution was invoked as the basis for supervisory review of the Tribunal’s order
Source reference: para. 2The Court applied no separately identified statutory test for premature withdrawal; its reasoning turned on whether the petitioners had substantiated their asserted necessity with adequate material.
Source reference: no citationIt considered A.V. Padma & Ors. v. R. Venugopal & Ors., AIR online 2012 SC 530, and Aidal Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine All 455, but held them distinguishable on the facts
Source reference: paras. 3, 7Reasoning
The petitioners relied principally on the marriage and the need to repay alleged loans, but produced no supporting documents beyond the marriage card and did not identify the persons from whom they had borrowed or the amounts borrowed
Source reference: paras. 5–6The Tribunal had also noted the absence of an account of the amount already disbursed and the petitioners’ failure to disclose income from their agricultural land
Source reference: para. 5In light of these evidentiary gaps, the High Court found no ground to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision under Article 227 and found that the cited precedents did not assist the petitioners
Source reference: paras. 6–7Holding
The Court held that the petitioners had not established a sufficient need for premature withdrawal of the fixed-deposit amounts and declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s order
The writ petition was dismissed
Source reference: para. 8Original Court PDF
SMT. HIRMOTI SAHUvsDINESH SHUKLA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
