Allowed

Bajirao Mahadeo Patil v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Othrs

Bombay HC29 Oct 2007CAF/5409/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Bench disposed of a Civil Appeal where the appellant, an Insurance company, opposed a withdrawal application. The court vacated a prior stay on Rs.70,000 awarded by the MACT and allowed the claimant to withdraw Rs.35,000 without security while investing the rest.

What did the court decide?

Stay on payment of Rs.70,000 vacated; leave granted to withdraw Rs.35,000 without security; balance to be invested.

Bajirao Mahadeo Patil Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

C.A. NO.5409 OF 2007 IN

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.864 OF 2007

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶6

Court’s or Judge’s Orders

¶7

Mr.S.S.Tambekar for the appellant.

¶8

Mr.S.M.Vidyarthi for respsondent no.1.

¶9

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.

¶10

DATED : 29th October, 2007

¶11

P.C.

¶12

The	lear	ned cou	nsel for	the
appellant	has	strongly	opposed	this
application	filed	by	the	original
applicant-respon	dent	n	o.1	for
withdrawal	of		the	amount.
Admittedly,	there	is no	appeal	filed
by the	owner.	The	appellant	is the
Insurance	company.	As	per	the
finding re	corded,	based up	on the	RTO
report/Register	the	trial	court	i.e.
Motor	Accident	s Claims	Tribunal	has
awarded	the	compensation	of	Rs.2
lacs w	ith	interest at	7.5	against

¶13

¶14

respondents	1	and 2,	jointly	and
severally.	The	tribunal	has	already
directed	to		pay	the
petitioner-original				claimants
Rs.70,000/- by acco	unt payee	and
remaining compensa	tion by inv	esting
in the Post Office fo	r a period	of

¶15

six years.

¶16

	A	t this		stage	of	the
proceedin	g	there	is	clear	finding	in
favour		of	the	claimants.		The
grounds		as	raised	need		detailed
scrutiny		and he	aring.	There	is	100%
disability	ca	used because	of the
accident i	n q	uestion.

¶17

Taking		all	this	into	account,
I am of	the	view	that	the	stay
granted by	this	court	to	this	extent
in reference	to		the	payment	of
Rs.70,000/-	is		vacated.		The
petitioner-original		clai	mant		is
entitled t	o	the		amount	of

¶18

Rs.70,000/- as already ordered even

¶19

at this stage of the proceeding.

¶20

¶21

However,	considering		the
submission raised, I	am of	the	view
that the petit	ioner-orig.claim	ant	is
entitled to	withdraw	Rs	.35,000/-
without security	and	Rs	.35,000/-
subject to furnishing surety to the
satisfaction of the trial court.
The rest of	the	amount	as
already ordered	be		invested
accordingly, if not already invested.

¶22

C.A. is accordingly disposed

¶23

of.

¶24

[ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.]

Bajirao Mahadeo Patil v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajirao Mahadeo Patil v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Othrs

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

Gajanan Rajaram Hulvane and Anr. Vs Anil Nirmal Khade and Ors.

Sinople Organics Vs M/S. Hickson and Dadajee Ltd.

Mrs. Supriya Girsh Rao Vs State Transport Corporation

Shyam Ramchandra Kunkule Vs Gangotri Shyam Kunkule

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs 1. Mr. Rajendra Saverna Singh and Anr.

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Archies Garage