Case at a Glance
A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Neemuch recalled its own order and directed that the claimants’ compensation could be invested in fixed deposits only through an account with Union Bank of India, believing that the High Court’s administrative instructions required it. After calling the Registry officers to explain, the Madhya Pradesh High Court found that no such instruction exists. It held that compensation can be transferred directly to the claimant’s account at any branch of any nationalised bank, that claimants need not open a Union Bank account, and it set aside the Tribunal’s orders.
The petitioners were claimants in MACC No. 141/2024 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neemuch. By an order dated 31 July 2026, the Tribunal recalled its earlier order of 3 July 2026, so that the amount to be put in fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) could be invested only in an account with Union Bank of India. By a further order of 5 August 2026, it explained that this was required by the Supreme Court’s directions, an order of the High Court’s Chief Justice dated 25 September 2025 and a Registry letter dated 8 October 2025.
The claimants challenged both orders in a civil revision, arguing that no instruction requires a Union Bank account and that compensation can be credited to a claimant’s account at any branch of any nationalised bank. The High Court asked the Principal Registrar to depute an officer; the Registrar (Judicial) and the Registrar (I.T.) appeared by video conference and stated that the High Court had never directed tribunals to insist on Union Bank accounts. A compliance report dated 27 October 2026 was also placed on record.
The Key Question Before the Court
Must a motor accident claimant open an account with Union Bank of India to receive compensation or have it invested in fixed deposits, because of the High Court’s disbursement dashboard arrangements?
What the Supreme Court Order and the Dashboard Actually Require
Justice Vinay Saraf set out the Supreme Court’s directions of 22 April 2025 in Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 7/2024, which require tribunals to collect claimants’ bank details with a banker’s certificate or cancelled cheque, verify that the account belongs to the person entitled, pay compensation directly into that account, invest deposited amounts in fixed deposits with a nationalised bank, maintain a dashboard of deposits, and run a drive to trace claimants who have not collected their money. The Court also reproduced the Registrar General’s seven-point practice procedure, under which tribunals without an account at State Bank of India or Union Bank of India must open one at Union Bank for dashboard transactions.
Reading these together, the Court found that the Union Bank requirement concerns the tribunal’s own account and the dashboard’s technical integration, not the claimant. The compliance report confirmed that “there is no administrative instructions, which mandate to create Fixed Deposit Receipt in any particular or specific bank.” At present only Union Bank of India is integrated with the dashboard for preparing FDRs, and other nationalised banks are being integrated. So, where FDRs are made through the dashboard, they can for now be created only at Union Bank branches, but, in the Court’s words, “there will be no requirement of opening of any account in the Union Bank of India” by the claimant.
What the Court Actually Held
- Compensation will be transferred directly to the claimant’s bank account at any branch of any nationalised bank, whether or not it is disbursed through the dashboard.
- If the amount is not disbursed through the dashboard, FDRs can be created at any branch of any nationalised bank.
- For FDRs created through the dashboard, only Union Bank of India is currently integrated, so those FDRs may be opened at its branches, but the claimant need not open any account with Union Bank of India; other nationalised banks will be available once integration is complete.
- The Tribunal’s orders dated 31 July 2026 and 5 August 2026 were set aside, and the Tribunal was directed to reconsider the claimant’s application in light of these directions.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It removes a practical hurdle that was delaying payment of accident compensation to victims and families in Madhya Pradesh.
- It explains, in one place, how the Supreme Court’s 2025 directions on MACT disbursement and the High Court’s dashboard procedure fit together.
- Tribunals across the State now have clear guidance that the Union Bank requirement applies to their own accounts, not to claimants.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants
- You can receive compensation in your existing account at any nationalised bank; give the Tribunal a banker’s certificate or cancelled cheque.
- If a Tribunal insists that you open a Union Bank account, point to this order of 29 October 2026.
For Counsel
- Where a tribunal wrongly restricts disbursement, a civil revision before the High Court can secure quick correction; here the Court called for the Registrya civil revision under Article 227-type supervisory jurisdiction can secure quick correction; here the High Court called for the Registry’s explanation.rsquo;s explanation and decided the matter on that basis.
- Keep the claimant’s bank details updated on record, as the Supreme Court’s directions require fresh details where there is a long gap before withdrawal.
Key Takeaways
- No High Court instruction requires claimants to bank with Union Bank of India.
- Direct transfer of compensation can be to any branch of any nationalised bank.
- Dashboard-based FDRs currently go through Union Bank only because of technical integration, without the claimant needing a Union Bank account.
- Tribunal orders insisting on a Union Bank account were set aside.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do MACT claimants in Madhya Pradesh need a Union Bank of India account?
No. The High Court held that compensation can be transferred to the claimant’s account at any branch of any nationalised bank, and that there is no requirement to open a Union Bank account.
Why does Union Bank appear in the dashboard procedure at all?
Under the Registrar General’s procedure, tribunals without an SBI or Union Bank account must open one at Union Bank, and only Union Bank is currently integrated with the dashboard for preparing FDRs. Other nationalised banks are being integrated.
What Supreme Court case governs MACT disbursement?
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s order dated 22 April 2025 in Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 7/2024, which requires direct payment into verified claimant accounts and investment of deposits in nationalised banks.
Conclusion
The order is short but practical. Compensation is meant to reach accident victims quickly and directly, and an administrative misunderstanding should not add another step. By setting out what the Supreme Court and the High Court’s own procedure actually require, the Court has given tribunals and claimants a clear rule to follow.
Practical takeaway: Claimants should file a banker’s certificate or cancelled cheque for their existing nationalised-bank account; if a tribunal insists on a Union Bank account, cite Smt. Shahin v. New India Assurance (2026:MPHC-IND:30429).
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com