Final Order 1

Order Details: Order on Exh.
Pdf Text: 1 of 6
MHMT010023892026
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
FOR GREATER MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 589 OF 2026
IN
M.A.C.P. NO. 226 OF 2023
Asmita Harishchandra Mahadik … Applicant
Versus
Naushad Ahmed Siddique & Anr. … Opposite Parties
ORDER
1. This is an application by the applicant/claimant
seeking release of the settlement amount of 2,00,000/-	₹
deposited by the insurer with this Tribunal and its transfer
to her bank account. She has also sought exemption from
payment of deficit court fee.
2. Perused the application, affidavit, original Award
dated 23.07.2026, Consent Terms/settlement, undertaking,
identity credentials, PAN and Aadhaar particulars,
Annexure-A containing bank particulars, cancelled cheque
and the reports submitted by the Accounts Officer and
-- 1 of 6 --
2 of 6
office of the Tribunal.
3. The record shows that M.A.C.P. No.226/2023 was
amicably settled through mediation. By Award dated
23.07.2026, the claim was allowed in terms of the Consent
Terms and the insurer was directed to pay a full and final
settlement amount of 2,00,000/-	₹ , inclusive of NFL, if any.
The Award contemplated direct deposit of the
compensation into the applicant's bank account after
production of her identity credentials and bank particulars.
4. The report of the Accounts Officer shows that the
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has deposited 2,00,000/-	₹ with
MACT, Mumbai. The amount thus represents the settlement
compensation admittedly payable to the applicant. The
office report further indicates that no order of the Hon'ble
High Court affecting the matter has been received/noticed
as on the date of the report.
5. Once the award amount has been deposited and the
person entitled thereto is duly identified, the amount
should ordinarily reach the beneficiary without unnecessary
procedural impediment. In General Manager, Kerala
S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that the Tribunal, while
dealing with disbursement of compensation, is required to
safeguard the compensation and the interests of the
beneficiary. The protective directions therein are intended
-- 2 of 6 --
3 of 6
to secure the compensation for the claimant and not to
unnecessarily obstruct its legitimate disbursement.
6. In the present case, the applicant is a major. Her
Aadhaar Card and PAN Card have been produced for
identification. Bank documents have also been tendered.
However, before electronic transfer, the Accounts Officer
shall verify and reconcile the bank account particulars from
the original/certified bank document, since the account
number appearing in the application/cancelled cheque and
that appearing in Annexure-A are not completely consistent.
Such verification is necessary to ensure that the
compensation is credited only to the account belonging to
the applicant.
7. So far as the prayer for exemption from payment of
deficit court fee is concerned, it cannot be granted in the
present Miscellaneous Application. Clause No.5 of the
Award dated 23.07.2026 specifically directs that “the
applicant shall pay the deficit court fees.” That direction
forms part of the final Award and has not been shown to
have been modified or set aside. The present disbursement
proceedings cannot be employed to alter that substantive
direction contained in the Award.
8. It is true that settlement through mediation is
encouraged by law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
recognised the legislative provisions operating in
-- 3 of 6 --
4 of 6
Maharashtra concerning refund of court fee where
proceedings are settled through recognised ADR
mechanisms. However, entitlement to refund/exemption
must arise under the governing statutory provision and
cannot, merely because the underlying dispute was settled
through mediation, be presumed contrary to a subsisting
direction in the Award.
9. Therefore, subject to compliance with the direction
regarding deficit court fee contained in the Award and due
verification of the applicant's identity and correct bank
account, there is no impediment to releasing the amount
deposited for her benefit.
ORDER
1. Misc. Application No.589/2026 is partly allowed.
2. The applicant's prayer for release of the
settlement/award amount of 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two	₹
Lakh only) is allowed, subject to payment of the deficit
court fee, if any, as directed in Clause No.5 of the Award
dated 23.07.2026.
3. After such compliance, the Accounts Officer, MACT,
Mumbai, shall verify the applicant's identity from the
identity credentials produced on record and shall
specifically verify/reconcile her correct bank account
number from the original/certified bank
-- 4 of 6 --
5 of 6
document/cancelled cheque.
4. Upon such verification, the Accounts Officer shall
transfer 2,00,000/-	₹ , together with accrued interest
thereon, if any and if legally payable/credited on the
Tribunal deposit, by NEFT/RTGS/ECS directly to the
verified individual bank account of applicant Asmita
Harishchandra Mahadik, in accordance with the applicable
procedure.
5. No remittance shall be effected merely on the basis of
the inconsistent account number appearing in Annexure-A.
The correct account number shall first be certified/verified
by the Accounts Officer from the cancelled
cheque/passbook/bank certificate and, if considered
necessary, by obtaining a fresh bank certificate from the
applicant.
6. The prayer seeking exemption from payment of deficit
court fee is rejected, in view of the express direction
contained in Clause No.5 of the Award dated 23.07.2026,
leaving open such remedy regarding refund of court fee, if
otherwise available to the applicant under the applicable
statutory provisions.
7. After disbursement, necessary entry thereof be made
in the concerned register/CIS and the voucher/UTR
particulars be preserved with the record.
-- 5 of 6 --
6 of 6
8. Misc. Application No.589/2026 stands disposed of
accordingly.
Pronounced in open Tribunal.
Mumbai.
Date: 24/09/2026
(Shashikant Eknathrao Bangar),
Member, C.R. No.3,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Greater Mumbai.
-- 6 of 6 --