Sumitra Yadav @ Sumetry vs M.A.C.T.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(UK) 61

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
PANKAJ PUROHIT
Sumitra Yadav @ Sumetry – Appellant
Versus
M.A.C.T. – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned counsel.
For the Respondents: Mr. Siddhartha Jain, learned counsel.

Table of Content
1. mismanagement of f.d.r. due to administrative failures. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments addressing negligence and responsibility for interest. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. court's analysis on the implications of deposit management. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. healing the loss by recalculating interest responsibility. (Para 14 , 15)
5. final orders to recalculate and distribute the compensation. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

The present writ petition arises out of a situation where the compensation amount awarded in favour of the petitioner by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the year 1994, and directed to be kept in a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) till she attained majority, remained unattended, unrenewed and deprived of interest for more than a decade due to gross administrative lapses on the part of the authorities concerned. The petitioner, upon attaining majority, discovered that the F.D.R. prepared in her favour had neither been renewed periodically nor had interest been credited in accordance with the award of the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, however, by order dated 04.09.2013, rejected her application seeking payment of due

Click Here to Read the rest of this document