MACT Tribunal's Order on Fund Withdrawal Modified by High Court in Accident Compensation Case.


03 April 2025 Motor Accident >> Family Law  

The Delhi High Court, exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has modified an order issued by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Rohini, Delhi. The MACT had previously frozen the savings bank accounts of the petitioners, preventing any withdrawals, and had called for a report from the bank regarding past withdrawals made by Petitioner No. 1. The High Court's decision allows Petitioner No. 1 to withdraw funds from her account, subject to certain conditions ensuring the minor son's share of the compensation is secured.

The case of Manju & Others v/s Mahesh Kumar (Driver) & Another., stems from an accident compensation award of Rs. 39.64 lakhs granted to the petitioners on October 19, 2024. During the execution proceedings of this award, the parties reached a settlement agreement on February 25, 2025, through mediation.

 
 

According to the settlement, the judgment debtor was to pay a total of Rs. 23 lakhs to the decree holders (petitioners) in full and final settlement. Out of this amount, Rs. 10 lakhs had already been paid to Petitioner No. 1 (Smt. Manju) on January 10, 2025. The remaining Rs. 13 lakhs was to be paid on or before March 7, 2025.

A significant aspect of the settlement was that Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 (the deceased's parents) relinquished their share of the compensation in favor of Petitioner No. 1, prioritizing the welfare of their grandchildren (Petitioner No. 2, Ms. Meenakshi, and Petitioner No. 3, Harsh). Furthermore, the agreement stipulated that Rs. 5 lakhs from the settlement amount would be placed in a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in the name of the minor son (Petitioner No. 3) until he attains majority.

During the High Court's hearing, Petitioner No. 1 confirmed the settlement and expressed the urgency of needing funds for Petitioner No. 2's (daughter's) marriage, scheduled for April 20, 2025. She reiterated her commitment to create an FDR for the minor son. Both parties affirmed that the settlement was entered into freely, without coercion.

The High Court noted that Rs. 20 lakhs had already been received by the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 assured the Court that an FDR of Rs. 5 lakhs would be created for the minor son within a week. Regarding the remaining Rs. 3 lakhs, the respondents stated they would ensure its deposit before the Tribunal as previously directed.

In its ruling, the High Court recognized the lawfulness of the settlement agreement. Consequently, it set aside the MACT's order preventing Petitioner No. 1 from withdrawing amounts from her bank account. However, the High Court clarified that the MACT is still at liberty to examine the bank accounts to ensure compliance with the settlement agreement and take any other necessary steps. It also mandated that if the balance Rs. 3 lakhs is not deposited as per the settlement, it must be deposited as an FDR in the minor son's bank account.