Partly allowed

Kiran Jaykumar Patil. v. Bapu Bala Patil and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Apr 2005FA/753/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the civil application to restore a default-dismissed appeal. Merits heard, the Court modified the impugned order, holding liability should rest with the insurance company rather than the appellant-vehicle owner.

What did the court decide?

Civil application allowed (appeal restored); Impugned order modified; Liability imposed on insurance company instead of appellant.

Kiran Jaykumar Patil. Vs Bapu Bala Patil and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.753 OF 1994.

¶5

WITH

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1678 OF 2005

¶7

 Shri Kiran Jaykumar Patil : Appellant.

¶8

 versus

¶9

 Bapu Bala Patil & Anr. : Respondents.

¶10

 Mr.N.J.Patil for the appellant.

¶11

 Mr.P.D.Dalvi for Respondent No.1.

¶12

CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J.

¶13

 DATED : 19th APRIL 2005.

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

 1. So far civil application is concerned, it

¶16

 is for restoration of the appeal which was
 dismissed by me for default on 14.2.2005 as

¶17

 nobody was present for the appellant on that
 date. Also nobody was present for the

¶18

¶19

 respondents on that day. Therefore, no notice of
 this application is found necessary. Hence the
 application is allowed. Appeal is restored to
 file and, by consent, it is taken up for final
 hearing.

¶20

 2. Heard the advocates for the appellant and
 respondent No.1. The appellant is the owner of
 the vehicle. He has filed this appeal
 challenging the order of the Motor Accident
 Claims Tribunal at Kolhapur dated 15th January
 1994 exonerating the insurance company. The
 deceased was employed by the appellant to unload
 the sand in the truck. He was not the passenger
 carried in the truck hired and, therefore, only
 contention raised in this appeal is that the
 insurance company was wrongly exonerated by the
 tribunal. My attention was drawn in this regard
 to para 4 of the judgment of the reference Court
 wherein the appellant has admitted that deceased
 was employed by him . That is also the case of
 the claimant that the deceased was employed by
 and he was in the truck to unload the sand in the
 truck. In view this, the impugned order cannot
 be sustained. Hence the order.

¶21

¶22

 :ORDER:

¶23

 Appeal is partly allowed.

¶24

 The order of the tribunal is modified.
 The liability imposed by the tribunal
 shall be against the insurance company
 and not against the appellant.

¶25

 No order as to costs.

¶26

 [D.G.DESHPANDE]

¶27

 19/04/2005 JUDGE.

Kiran Jaykumar Patil. v. Bapu Bala Patil and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Jaykumar Patil. v. Bapu Bala Patil and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Akkatai S. Bhore Vs M.S.R.T.C. Depatt. and Ors.

Shri Azim Mohamad Khalfe. Vs Noormahamad G. Belim and Ors.

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Baburao Laxman Palkar and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Subhash Anant Shetye

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mrs.Barkibai B.Bhagat and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mr.Nama Alya Patil