Allowed

Rupali Ramdas Deshmukh and Othrs v. Vijay Arvind Pore and Anr.

Bombay HC3 May 2012CAF/1040/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Motor Accidents Claim case, the High Court allowed an applicant to withdraw portions of the decretal sum deposited by the respondent. The withdrawal was permitted for maintenance and education purposes, subject to furnishing security for some parts, with the balance amount invested in a fixed deposit till the final disposal of the First Appeal.

What did the court decide?

Applicant no.1 permitted to withdraw Rs.7 lakhs without security and further Rs.10 lakhs on furnishing solvent surety; balance amount directed to be invested in fixed deposit.

Rupali Ramdas Deshmukh and Othrs Vs Vijay Arvind Pore… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 CAF.1040.2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1040 OF 2012 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1175 OF 2010

¶4

Rupali Ramdas Deshmukh and others versus

¶5

Vijay Arvind Pore and another

¶6

Applicants

¶7

Respondents

¶8

Mr.P.J.Pawar for applicants. Mr.S.S.Shah for respondent no.1. Mrs.Urmila Sanil for respondent no.3.

¶9

CORAM : K.K.TATED, J.

¶10

DATE : May 03, 2012

¶11

PC :

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application is preferred by original claimants for withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 28,71,00/- deposited by the respondent no.1 in Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Satara. In the present case, the applicants filed Motor Accidents Claim Petition No.164 of 2005 before Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, at Satara under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.76,15,000/-. In an accident dated 9 March 2004, the husband of applicant no.1-father of applicant no.2 Ramdas Deshmukh expired. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record held that respondent no.1 is liable to pay a sum of Rs.28,71,000/- including the amount of no fault liability of Rs.

¶13

1 of 6

¶14

2 CAF.1040.2012

¶15

50,000/- to the applicants along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till its actual realization. Pursuant to the order dated 17 June 2011 passed by this Court in Civil Application No.1998 of 2011, the respondent no.1 deposited the entire decretal amount before the Tribunal. By the said order, the Court also allowed the applicant no.1 to withdraw a sum of Rs.75,000/- and the applicant nos.3 and 4 Rs.30,000/- each.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant no.1 is a household wife and applicant no.2 is student taking his education. He further submits that the applicant nos.3 and 4 are senior citizens. He submits that applicants require some amount for day to day expenses as well taking care of her father-in-law and mother-in-law. He further submits that she requires some amount for the purposes of education of applicant no.2.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 vehemently opposed the present Civil Application. He submits that admittedly the applicant sold two trucks after the death of her husband. Therefore, that amount is lying with the applicants. He further submits that even the Tribunal has considered the multiplier on higher side i.e. 17. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the income of the deceased was at Rs. 21,000/- per month. On these submissions, learned counsel for respondent no.1 opposed the Civil Application.

¶18

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the

¶19

2 of 6

¶20

3 CAF.1040.2012

¶21

applicant that applicants require some amount for her day to day maintenance, for applicant's no.2's education purpose and for medical expenses of applicant nos.3 and 4, I am of opinion that the applicants are entitled to have some amounts.

¶22

Therefore, the Civil Application is allowed on following terms:

¶23

(a) Applicant no.1 is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.7.00 lakhs (Rs.Seven lakhs only) without furnishing any security, subject to the outcome of the First Appeal;

¶24

(b) Applicant no.1 is entitled to withdraw a further sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs (Rs.Ten lakhs only) on bahalf of other applicants on furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;

¶25

(c) The Trial Court is directed to invest the remaining amount in fixed deposit of any nationalized bank initially for a period of one year and the same be further invested thereafter from time to time till hearing and final disposal of the First Appeal;

¶26

(d) Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.

M.S.Thatte

3 of 6

4 CAF.1040.2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶31

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1998 OF 2011 IN

¶32

FIRST APPEAL NO.1175 OF 2010

¶33

Rupali Ramdas Deshmukh and others Applicants versus Vijay Arvind Pore and another Respondents

¶34

Mr.P.J.Pawar for applicants. Mr.S.S.Shah for respondent no.1. Mrs.Urmila Sanil for respondent no.3.

¶35

CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATE : May 03, 2012

¶36

PC :

¶37

Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board.

¶38

Learned counsel for the applicant states that this Court by order dated 17 June 2011 (Coram : A.S.Oka, J.) directed the applicant to serve the respondent by private notice and filed affidavit of service one week before the returnable date, failing which the application will stand dismissed for non prosecution. He states that applicant sent a copy of application and notice to respondents 1 and 2 by RPAD but same was returned unserved with postal remark "address not known". He submits that thereafter respondents 1 and 2 preferred civil application for withdrawal of the amount. Therefore, in view of

¶39

4 of 6

¶40

5 CAF.1040.2012

¶41

subsequent development, the civil application which was dismissed as per conditional order dated 17 June 2011 may be restored.

¶42

Considering the submission made by learned advocate for the applicant, I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for restoration of the Civil Application. Civil Application No.1998 of 2011 is restored accordingly.

¶43

Now, as far as merits of the application are concerned, this application is preferred by original opponent no.1 for stay of the judgment and decree dated 31 May 2010 passed by Member, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal in Claim Petition No.164 of 2005. Learned counsel appearing for applicant submits that as per order dated 17 June 2011 they have already deposited the entire decretal amount in the Trial Court.

¶44

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for applicant and averments made in the Civil Application, I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for allowing the Civil Application.

¶45

The Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which read thus :

¶46

"(a) Pending hearing and final disposal of the First Appeal bearing No.1175 of 2010 the effect, operation and/or implementation of the Judgment and Award

¶47

5 of 6

¶48

6 CAF.1040.2012

¶49

passed by the learned Member, M.A.C.T., Satara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.164 of 2005 filed by the Respondent herein may kindly be stayed/suspended."

¶50

(K.K.TATED, J.)

¶51

M.S.Thatte

¶52

6 of 6

Rupali Ramdas Deshmukh and Othrs v. Vijay Arvind Pore and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupali Ramdas Deshmukh and Othrs v. Vijay Arvind Pore and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ajit Shahul Tiwade and Anr.

Mangala Hindurao Salunkhe and Ors. Vs Ramesh Shankar Bhakre and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sudam Ramchandra Waidande and Ors.

Sambhaji Baburao Parit Vs Appasaheb Sahebrao Londhe and Anr.

Mangal Dhananjay @Dhanpal Udgave and Ors. Vs Baburao Dhuappa Tare and Anr.

Sudhakar Pundalik Pawaskar Vs Arvind Pundalik Pawaskar