Allowed

Bhagwan S/O. Kisanrao Dete and Anr. v. the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Dec 2009WP/5101/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order rejecting an application to withdraw the award amount. The High Court quashed the tribunal order, allowing withdrawal for adult parties while directing minor's share to be deposited in a bank.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 22nd June 2009 by the Tribunal is quashed. Application for withdrawal is allowed for petitioners and respondent no.2. Amount for respondent no.3 to be deposited in a nationalized bank.

Bhagwan S/O. Kisanrao Dete and Anr. Vs the New India… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5101 OF 2009

¶4

Bhagwan s/o. Kisanrao Dete, Age : 62 years, Occupation : Agriculture.

¶5

Laxmibai w/o. Bhagwanrao Dete, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Household.

¶6

Both R/o. Rui (Dhoki), Taluka & District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioners.

¶7

versus

¶8

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Branch Neharu Nagar, Jalgaon, Through its Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Hutatma Smruti Mandir, Complex, Solapur.

¶9

Ulka w/o. Ravindra Dete, Age : 29 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Prasad Colony, Osmanabad, Taluka & District : Osmanabad.

¶10

Vikrant s/o. Ravindra Dete, Age : 9 years, Minor, U/G. his real mother, Respondent no.2. .. Respondents.

¶11

(2)

¶12

Mr. B.S. Shinde, Advocate, holding for Mr. E.S. Murge, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. A.S. Usmanpurkar, Advocate, holding for Mr. K.V. Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent no.1.

¶14

Mr. V.B. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶15

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J.

¶16

DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2009.

¶17

COURT'S ORDER :

¶18

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

¶19

By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 22nd June 2009, passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Osmanabad, in Day Petition No. 35/2009, filed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 255/2002, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner and the respondent nos.2 and 3 for withdrawal of the amount.

¶20

Since the son of the present petitioner, who is husband of respondent no.2 and father of respondent no.3, had died in an accident, a

¶21

(3)

¶22

claim petition came to be filed by the present petitioners and the respondent nos.3 and 4. An award came to be passed on 7th May 2008 in the said claim petition. In the said award, apportionment of share of all the claimants has been given. In so far as the share of respondent no.3, who is a minor, has been directed to be deposited in a nationalized Bank. The petitioner and the respondent nos.2 and 3 had jointly filed an application for withdrawal of the amount falling to their respective shares as per the award. The said application is rejected on the ground that the matter is pending before this court. Hence, the present petition.

¶23

Mr. B.S. Shinde, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that it is only the claimants who have filed appeal before this court and not the Insurance Company. He, therefore, submits that the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application.

¶24

Mr. A.S. Usmanpurkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1, vehemently opposes the application.

¶25

Admittedly, the Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal before this court. It is only the claimants who have approached this court for enhancement of compensation. In that view of the matter, I find that the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application.

¶26

Hence, the petition is allowed.

¶27

(4)

¶28

The order dated 22nd June 2009, passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Osmanabad, in Day Petition No. 35/2009, filed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 255/2002, is quashed and set aside. The application for withdrawal of the amount, on behalf of the present petitioners and the respondent no.2, is allowed. It is made clear that in so far as amount of respondent no.3 is concerned, the same shall be deposited in a nationalized Bank, as directed in the award.

¶29

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE

¶31

bgp/wp5101

Bhagwan S/O. Kisanrao Dete and Anr. v. the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwan S/O. Kisanrao Dete and Anr. v. the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

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

Sanjeevkumar Devidas Awale Vs the Secretary, Gramin Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Walandi and Ors.

Bajrang Satwaji Sakhare Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rangnath S/O. Maruti Wakale Vs Bhimabai W/O. Hiralal Dhanure and Ors.

Shobha Fulchand Pande Vs Chandulal Deepchand Kale and Ors.

Smt. Radhabai W/O. Sonu Gadhari and Ors. Vs Sushilabai Vishram Gadhari and Ors.

Vishwanath Savlram Sarode Vs the State of Maharashtra