Modification of the mode of disbursement of compensation amounts from fixed deposits due to genuine financial hardship does not constitute a review of the original award on merits.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

CM-9637-CII-2026:

This is an application under Section 151 CPC to place on record wedding invitation, photographs and bank statement as Annexure P-4 to P-6.

Allowed.

Annexure P-4 to P-6 are taken on record.

Main case.:

One Suresh Kumar lost his life in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 08.05.2020. His widow, daughter and son instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of his untimely death. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide award dated 07.04.2025 awarded compensation of ₹15,40,800/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization. The compensation amount was directed to be shared equally amongst the three claimants.

2. The learned Tribunal further directed that out of the compensation amount, each claimant would be released ₹1,00,000/- in cash and the remaining amount falling to their respective shares would be kept in fixed deposits in a nationalized bank for a period of two years in a scheme fetching maximum rate of interest. It was also directed that no loan or advance shall be permi=ed against the said FDRs, though the claimants were permi=ed to withdraw quarterly interest accrued thereupon.

3. Subsequently, all the three claimants moved an application before the learned Tribunal seeking premature encashment of the FDRs issued in their favour. As per the record, the FDR standing in the name of claimant Geeta Devi is for an amount of ₹7,23,820/-, the FDR in the name of claimant Pinki Kumari is for ₹7,24,534/- and the FDR in favour of claimant Harish is for ₹7,23,820/-. The maturity date of the FDR in the name of Pinki is 10.09.2027 and other FDRs is 17.09.2027.

4. In the said application, it was specifically pleaded that the family was facing acute financial hardship. It was averred that substantial loans had been raised on interest for solemnization of the marriage of claimant Pinki Kumari and further that the residential house of the family had suffered damage requiring urgent repairs. It was, therefore, prayed that the claimants be permi=ed to withdraw the FDR amounts prematurely to meet the pressing financial needs.

5. Learned Tribunal, however, vide impugned order dated 04.04.2026 dismissed the application primarily on the ground that permiCng premature withdrawal of the amount would amount to review of the original award.

6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, claimant Pinki Kumari has approached this Court by way of present petition, impleading the remaining claimants as proforma respondents. Prayer has been made for seCng aside the impugned order and for permiCng premature withdrawal of the amount lying in the FDRs.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the Tribunal adopted an unduly technical approach while rejecting the application. It is argued that once the compensation amount belongs to the claimants, the Court cannot compel adult claimants to indefinitely retain the entire amount in fixed deposits irrespective of their genuine financial requirements. It is further submi=ed that refusal to release the amount despite compelling circumstances defeats the very object of awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, which is intended to provide immediate financial relief to the dependents of the deceased.

8.