Orissa High Court
Sudam Behera & Anr vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 31 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 24286 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Sudam Behera & Anr. .... Petitioner (s)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bijaya Kumar Parida-2, Adv.
Along with Associates
For Opposite Party (s) : Smt. Sarita Moharana, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-08.09.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-31.10.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioners, through the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seek to assail the Order dated
20.05.2025 passed by the Learned 1st Additional District Judge-Cum-1st
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in MAC No. 1129 of 2020,
whereby the prayer of the Petitioner for premature withdrawal of the
entire fixed deposit amount was allowed in part. The Petitioner further
prays for a direction permitting premature withdrawal of the entire
fixed deposit amount to meet the educational expenses pertaining to the
higher studies of her daughter.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The Petitioner, being the parents of their deceased, who
unfortunately lost his life in a motor vehicle accident, instituted a
claim before the Learned Tribunal seeking just compensation
under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was
registered as M.A.C No. 1129 of 2020.
(ii) Thereafter, the said M.A.C Case was adjudicated and disposed of
by the Learned Tribunal, whereby compensation was awarded in
favour of the Petitioners. The Learned Court below, while
disbursing the awarded amount, directed that a sum of Rs.
3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) be kept in fixed deposit in
the name of the Petitioners for a period of 5 years in any
Nationalized Bank, with liberty to draw the accrued interest
periodically.
(iii) Subsequently, the daughter of the Petitioners was selected for
pursuning higher study in Air Hostess at the Frankfinn Institute.
In view of the financial requirement for her admission and course
fees, the Petitioner filed an application before the Learned Court
below seeking permission for premature withdrawal of the fixed
deposit amount standing in their name, for the limited purpose of
meeting the educational expenses of their daughter.
(iv) Thereafter, by order dated on 20.08.2025, the Learned Court below
partly allowed the said application, permitting the Petitioners to
withdraw a portion of the fixed deposit amount directing that the
balance sum shall continue to remain in fixed deposit in their
names for the remaining period as originally stipulated.
Aggrieved by the said rejection, the Petitioner has preferred the present
Writ Petition.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioners respectfully and earnestly made
the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Petitioners have assailed the impugned order dated 20.05.2025,
passed by the Learned Learned 1st Additional District Judge-Cum-1st
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in MAC No. 1129 of 2020,
on the ground that the said order suffers from legal infirmity and
procedural irregularity, warranting interference by this Court in
exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India.
(ii) By the impugned order dated 20.05.2020, the Learned Court below
rejected the Petitioner's prayer for the premature withdrawal of the
entire fixed deposit amount, holding that only partial withdrawal
could be permitted in accordance with the directions earlier issues at
the time of disbursement of the award amount.
(iii) It is contended that the son of the Petitioners unfortunately
succumbed to injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, and
thereafter, the Petitioners, being the parents and legal
representatives of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking just compensation under
the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(iv) Thereafter, the Tribunal, upon adjudication of the claim, awarded
compensation in favour of the Petitioners and, while directing
disbursement of the award sum, further ordered that an amount of
Rs 3,00,000/- be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the Petitioner
for a period of 5years in any nationalized bank, with liberty to draw
the interest accrued thereon periodically.
(v) It is further submitted that the daughter of the Petitioners, upon
successful completion of her +2 Science, was subsequently selected
for her higher studies in the Air Hostess Training at the Frankfinn
Institute. In absence of any other viable financial source to meet the
requisite admission and course expenses, the Petitioners approached
the Learned Court below by filing an application seeking permission
for premature withdrawal of the fixed deposit amount, specifically
for the purpose of facilitating their daughter's admission to the said
course.
(vi) By order dated 20.08.2025, the Learned Court below, partly allowed
the Petitioners' application, permitting withdrawal of a sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- from fixed deposit and directing the concerned Bank to
release the said amount in favour of the Petitioners. The Learned
Court further directed the balance amount shall continue to remain
in fixed deposit in their names for the remaining period, in
accordance with the terms and conditions earlier imposed at the time
of disbursement of the award amount.
(vii) In this juncture the Petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court,
seeking a direction for release of the entire fixed deposit amount
along with the accrued interest, contending that such withdrawal is
essential to meet the educational expenses of their daughter. It is
urged that, unless the permission for full withdrawal is granted, the
Petitioners would suffer serious financial hardship and their
daughter's admission to the said institute would be adversely
affected, thereby causing them grave prejudice.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Opposite Party contend that the present Writ Petition is not
maintainable before this Hon'ble Court as to be rejected in limine.
(i) The Opposite Party submits that the present Petitioners have
prayed for release of the entire amount i.e. Rs. 3,00,00/-, which
stands jointly deposited in Union Bank of India, Cuttack
together with the interest accrued thereon in their favour.
(ii) Upon query by the Court, both the Petitioners submitted that
their daughter, Ms. Anusatya Behera, has been selected for
higher studies in Air Hostess Training at Franklin Institute. It
was further stated that the Petitioners have no independent
source of income or savings for release of the fixed deposit
amount standing in their names to facilitate their daughter's
admission.
(iii) The Opposite Party further contends that, upon perusal of the
case record, it was that a sum of Rs 3,00,000/- had been jointly
kept in the names of the Petitioners in the form of fixed deposit
in the bank in the concerned bank pursuant to the earlier order
of the Learned Tribunal.
(iv) The Opposite Party strenuously urged that the order dated
27.09.2024 was rightly passed by the Learned Court below,
wherein, upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances
of the case and the financial need of the Petitioners, the
concerned Bank manager was directed to release a sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- only jointly in favour of the Petitioners, while the
balance amount was directed to remain in fixed deposit in their
names for the remaining period, in accordance with the terms
and conditions earlier imposed at the time of disbursement of
the compensation.
(v) The Learned Court below placed reliance upon the decision in
Dibakar Pradhan & Anr v. Iswar Chandra Majhi & Ors1,
wherein it was held that, in matters relating to disbursement of
compensation, the Tribunal is duty-bound to ensure that the
awarded amount is appropriately invested, so as to safeguard
the corpus from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to
ignorance, illiteracy or vulnerability to exploitation.
(vi) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Learned Court
below, the Petitioners have approached this Court invoking its
Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India, seeking appropriate relief and modification of the
impugned order to permit premature withdrawal of the entire
fixed deposit amount.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
(2014) 118 CLT 968
6. In light of the forgoing facts, the Court observes that the assessment of
compensation, though inherently involving a decree of hypothetical
consideration, must nonetheless be grounded in objectively and rational
evaluation. The principles of justice and justness in adjudication
emanate from the equality of treatment, consistency in approach, and
fairness and uniformity in the decision-making process. A judicial
determination, to command legitimacy, must therefore reflect reasoned
discretion, balanced appreciation of evidence, and adherence to
establish legal norms.
7. This Court has placed reliance upon the decision in A.V. Padma & Ors
v. R. Venugopal & Ors2, wherein it was emphatically held that the
Tribunal, while adjudicating claims under the Motor Vehicle Act, must
extend thoughtful and judicious considerations to the genuine needs
and circumstances of the claimants, rather than adopting a mechanical
or perfunctory approach. The Spirit and object of the legislation being
beneficial and compensatory in nature, the adajudicatory process should
be informed by equity and pragmatic appreciation of the realities
confronting the victims or their dependents.
8. Adverting to the seminal pronouncement of the Supreme Court's
decision in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas & Ors3, while aforming
the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Muljibi Ajarambhai Harijan
v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.4, enunciated certain guiding
(2012) 3 SCC 378
3 (1994) 2 SCC 176
1982 (1) GLR 756
principles intended to ensure the prudent investment and protection of
compensation amounts awarded to claimants. The guidelines were
framed with a view to balancing the imperatives of financial security for
the dependents with the necessity of preventing dissipation or
misutilisation of the compensation corpus. The relevant directions, as
delineated therein, are as follows:
"(i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors,
invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the
minor be invested in long term fixed deposits at least till the
date of the minor attaining majority. The expenses incurred
by the guardian or next friend may, however, be allowed to
be withdrawn;
(ii) In the case of illiterate claimants also the Claim Tribunal
should follow the procedure set out in (i) above, but if lump
sum payment is required for effecting purchases of any
moveable or immoveable property such as, agricultural
implements, rickshaw, etc., to earn a living, the Tribunal
may consider such a request after making sure that the
amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is
not a use to withdraw money;
(iii) in the case of semi-literate persons the Tribunal should
ordinarily resort to the procedure set out at (i) above unless
it is satisfied, for reasons to be stated in writing, that the
whole or part of the amount is required for expanding and
existing business or for purchasing some property as
mentioned in (ii) above for earning his livelihood, in which
case the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for
the purpose for which it is deemed and paid;
(iv) In the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may
resort to the procedure indicated in (i) above, subject to the
relaxation set out in (ii) and (iii) above, if having regard to
the age, fiscal background and strata of society to which the
claimant belongs and such other considerations, the
Tribunal in the larger interest of the claimant and with a
view to ensuring the safety of the compensation awarded to
him thinks it necessary to do order;
(v) In the case of widows the Claim Tribunal should
invariably follow the procedure set out in (i) above;
(vi) In personal inquiry cases if further treatment is
necessary the Claims Tribunal on being satisfied about the
same, which shall be recorded in writing, permit withdrawal
of such amount as is necessary for incurring the expenses
for such treatment;
(vii) In all cases in which investment in long term fixed
deposits is made it should be on condition that the Bank will
not permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposit and
interest on the amount invested is paid monthly directly to
the claimant or his guardian, as the case may be;
(viii) In all cases Tribunal should grant to the claimants
liberty to apply for withdrawal in case of an emergency. To
meet with such contingency, if the amount awarded is
substantial, the Claims Tribunal may invest it in more that
one Fixed Deposit so that if need be one such F.D.R. can be
liquidated."
9. The Learned Court below observed that the sole ground urged for
seeking premature withdrawal of the fixed deposit was that the
daughter of the Petitioners has been selected for her higher studies in
Air Hostess. The said Court, however, did not consider the
circumstances to constitute a valid and sufocient ground for such
withdrawal and upon such reasoning, held that no other genuine or
compelling cause had been established by the Petitioners. Consequently,
the prayer for premature encashment of the fixed deposit receipt (FDR)
was declined.
10. It is evident that the impugned order that the Learned Court failed to
duly appreciate the true purport, object, and spirit underlying the
directions enunciated in Susamma Thoma's case (supra). The
fundamental intent behind directing the deposit of the claimant's
compensation in fixed deposits receipts is to safeguard and secure the
awarded sum for the ultimate benefit and financial stability of the
claimant. However, when a prayer for premature withdrawal is made to
meet bona fide personal exigencies or pressing necessities of life, the
Court is enjoined to consider the same with a sympathetic and judicious
approach. The compensation awarded being the property of the
claimant, the Learned Court ought to have permitted withdrawal of the
requisite amount, keeping in view the claimant's legitimate needs and
welfare.
11. It is imperative that the claimant must entertain a reasonable and
legitimate exceptions of pecuniary benefits arising from the relationship
with the deceased. It is equally well settled that the existence of the
exceptions, as well as any exception thereto, is a matter of factual
inference- such inference must necessarily rests upon a discernible
foundation of fact from which it can logically and reasonably be drawn.
12. The guidelines enunciated in Susamma Thoma's case (supra), impose
upon the Court a solemn duty to exercise its judicial discretion with
circumspection and to render appropriate directions upon a meticulous
appraisal of the peculiar facts and circumstances of each individual
case. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the Court to issue necessary and
reasoned orders, bearing in mind the paramount interest and welfare of
the claimant, rather than resorting to a perfunctory or mechanical
disposal of the application bereft of judicious consideration.
13. In the present case, there is no room for doubt that the record contains
significant and compelling pieces of evidence indicative of such
exceptions; however, these remain but elements of proof, from which
the necessary inference must be judiciously drawn in light of the
surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case.
14. The Petitioners have demonstrated a genuine financial necessity arising
from their daughter's pursuit of higher education in Air Hostess
Training. Having suffered the irreparable loss of their son in the motor
vehicle accident, the Petitioners now aspire to fulfil the educational
aspirations of their daughter, thereby securing her future and stability.
The evidence on record unequivocally establishes the bona fides of their
pecuniary requirement, and it stands proved that there exists a
reasonable and legitimate exceptions of pecuniary benefit, warranting
sympathetic and judicious consideration by this Court.
V. CONCLUSION:
15. In view of the foregoing analysis and upon an anxious consideration of
the material facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Petitioners, being genuinely aggrieved by
the order passed by the Learned 1st ADJ-Cum-1st MACT, Cuttack in
MAC No. 1129 of 2020, has made out of a case warranting interference
under the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
16. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is held to be maintainable in law
as well as on facts.
17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed in the foregoing terms.
Consequent reliefs shall follow in accordance with law.
18. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 31st Oct., 2025/
