In a civil revision filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court against an order dated 31-07-2026 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neemuch (MACT), whereby MACT recalled its earlier order dated 03-07-2026 to the extent that the amount required to be invested in FDR could be invested only in the bank account maintained with Union Bank of India, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Vinay Saraf found that there was no direction requiring the account to be opened in Union Bank of India, and set aside the impugned orders with a direction to reconsider the claimant’s application.
MACT further passed the order dated 05-08-2026 and explained that, in view of the Supreme Court’s orders, the directions issued by the Chief Justice, and a letter dated 08-10-2025, the amount could be transferred only in the bank account of the claimant maintained with Union Bank of India for the purpose of investing in FDR. The claimants challenged the two orders on the ground that there were no such instructions issued either by the Supreme Court, by the Chief Justice or by the Registry of M.P. High Court. The petitioners submitted that the amount could be transferred in the bank account of the claimant directly maintained with any branch of any nationalized bank.
Considering the importance of the issue involved, this Court issued direction to the Principal Registrar to depute an officer or counsel of the Registry to attend the date of hearing and explain the procedure prescribed by the High Court. The officers explained that the Chief Justice and the Registry of the High Court never directed the tribunals to insist upon opening a bank account in the Union Bank of India, and that the direction was issued in compliance of the Supreme Court order to transfer the amount of compensation directly to the bank accounts of the claimants maintained with any nationalized bank in any branch. A compliance report dated 27.10.2026 was also considered.
The Court considered the explanation given by the officers of the registry and the compliance report, which explained that there were no administrative instructions which mandated creating an FDR in any particular or specific bank. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in a suo motu writ petition, which directed that the fixed deposit be invested with any nationalised bank, and that the MACTs pass an order of transfer of the requisite amounts directly to the bank account of the person entitled to receive compensation. Reference was also made to the practice procedure for use of the dashboard issued by the Registrar General, in compliance of the Supreme Court order dated 22-04-2025 and the Chief Justice’s order dated 25-09-2025.
The Court found that there was no direction that, for disbursement of the awarded amount or creation of the Fixed Term Deposit, the account was required to be opened in Union Bank of India. It was stated that the claimant could open the account in any branch of any Nationalized Bank, and upon submission of the details of the bank account, MACTs were under obligation to transfer the amount directly to the account of the claimant. The Court noted that, as per the present arrangement, only Union Bank of India was integrated with the dashboard for preparation of FDRs, and that integration of other nationalised banks was in process.
Hence, the petition was disposed of with the directions that:
● The compensation amount would be directly transferred to the bank account of the claimant maintained with any branch of any nationalised bank;
● If the amount was not being disbursed through the dashboard, the FDRs could be created in any branch of any nationalised bank;
● If the amount was being disbursed through the dashboard, the compensation amount could be transferred to the bank account of the claimant directly;
● In case of investing the compensation amount in FDRs through the dashboard, FDRs could be opened only in any branch of Union Bank of India, as only Union Bank of India was integrated, however there would be no requirement of opening any account in the Union Bank of India for the purpose of FDR by the claimant;
The Court clarified that the High Court was in process of integrating some other nationalised banks, after which the FDRs would be opened with those banks also. Thus, the impugned orders dated 31-07-2026 and 05-08-2026 were set aside, with a direction to the Member MACT, Neemuch to reconsider the application filed by the claimant.
