In the first case, Mr. Priyank Chand died in a motor accident on February 27, 2009. Compensation was claimed by the claimants, who were his mother (appellant), daughter-in-law, and minor children. Rs. 1,00,000 went to the mother, Rs. 6,26,000 (along with interest) went to the daughter-in-law, and Rs. 3,00,000 each in the form of fixed deposits went to the minors from the Rs. 11,82,000 the Tribunal awarded. The amounts were disbursed in the form of cheques.

The mother had petitioned for a tardy review on grounds of procedural grievances and unfair disbursal, which she explained by alleging surgery and serious illness. The Tribunal dismissed this since there was no supporting document for the delay. There were also conflicts between the appellant and her lawyer. Her High Court revisional petition was later rejected too.

The appellant challenged the distribution of compensation, averring that it was discriminatorily treated under laws of succession, and contended that the Tribunal was wrong in rejecting the delay condonation. She averred that she was deliberately excluded from the courtroom on the day of disbursement, amongst other procedural irregularities.

To prove that the appellant was aware of and consented to the compensation payment, the High Court noted that the appellant was present during disbursement, accepted the check without protest, and signed the order sheet. The Court ruled that the distribution order was not vitiated by fraud or procedural irregularity. The tardiness of the appellant and her failure to acquire a certified copy of the disbursement order raised suspicions regarding the genuineness of her claims.

Accordingly, the legal narrative illustrates that acceptance and realization of compensation with aware consent excludes later challenge except for cogent reasons within the limitation period. The Courts maintained procedural regularity, equity, and finality in claims payment under motor accident law.