CM(M)/2153/2026 of JITENDER KUMAR Vs MOHD. AHSAN AND ORS on 28 September 2026

O R D E R

%

28.09.2026 CM APPL. 66932/2026 (Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of. CM(M) 2153/2026

1. This petition has been filed for setting aside order dated 29th July 2026 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (‘MACT’) in Misc. No. 1181/2026 arising out of MACT No.121/2020, seeking partial release of compensation deposited before the MACT. The MACT had passed the award on 10th February 2026 for a total sum of Rs.37,74,000/-, including interest, out of which, 10% of the amount was directed to be released to petitioner/claimant and the remaining balance was kept in fixed deposit receipts (‘FDRs’) to be released in a phased manner in multiples of Rs.20,000/-.

2. In an application filed before the MACT, seeking release of compensation, petitioner/claimant stated that he was living in a rented house which is in a pathetic condition and for that purpose, he had purchased a plot in Najafgarh, Delhi and is looking forward to taking care of his family needs. The Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney and possession letter had been placed on record.

3. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate appears for petitioner/claimant and states that the petitioner has paid the entire consideration amount of Rs.24,00,000/-.

4. MACT in the impugned order rejected the application on the basis that, nothing had been disclosed about ‘utilization of the amounts already released’ to him and no statement had been made regarding his financial condition.

5. Yet again, an MACT has taken a constrained view in matters of partial release, especially, when the claimant has come forward to state that they are in urgent requirement of money, as in this case, for purchase of property meant for the family and relevant documents have also been filed in support. Compensation belongs to the petitioner/claimant and deposit in fixed deposits are only meant to secure a long-term need. However, that does not mean that any urgent situation or requirement by a claimant shall be rejected and looked at with suspicion and money will not be released. MACT ought not to be enquiring about utilization of the amount already released, since that is in the domain of the private life of a person.

6. The Court has passed a detailed order taking a view in Sanjay Sachdeva v. Bhola Mahato & Ors (M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd), MAC.APP. 1004/2016, on such orders being passed by MACTs rejecting partial release of compensation for reasons neither reasonable nor logical. A copy of the said order has also been sent to all the MACTs within the jurisdiction of this Court.

7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside.

8. Release of Rs.15,00,000/- which has been sought for by the petitioner/claimant is permitted. Same will be released by liquidating the requisite number of FDRs into the designated account of the petitioner/claimant.

9. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, confirms that the petitioner/claimant has been counseled and is aware of the implications of withdrawing a chunk of amount from his deposited compensation, particularly, with respect to the future availability of such compensation.

10. Petition is disposed of in above terms.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned MACT, along with a copy of the order passed in Sanjay Sachdeva (supra).

12. Copy of this order be sent to the Manager, SBI Bank, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.

13. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/ak/sp