Partly allowed

Shankar Digamber (Kisan) Jigle v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr Its Authorized Signatory, Aurangabad

Bombay HC10 Aug 2017CA/9439/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the applicant to withdraw 50% of the deposited compensation for physical disability, directing the remainder into fixed deposit till the appeal's disposal. The delay application was admitted.

What did the court decide?

Allowed withdrawal of 50% of Rs. 6,60,822 deposited; remainder deposited in fixed till appeal disposal.

Shankar Digamber (Kisan) Jigle Vs United India… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

910 sr.no..odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

910 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9439 OF 2017 IN FAST/36361/2016 WITH CA/408/2017 IN FAST/36361/2016

¶5

SHANKAR DIGAMBER (KISAN) JIGLE VERSUS

¶6

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. THR ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, AURANGABAD

¶7

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Pratibha J. Bharad Adv. for Respondent No. 1: Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar Adv. for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. A.S. Shivpuje

¶8

CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.

¶9

DATE : 10^th August, 2017.

¶10

PER COURT:

¶11

1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company. Perused the application.

¶12

2] The learned Member, MACT, Nanded allowed the claim petition filed by the applicant and directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4,59,800/jointly and severally by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Insurance Company and owner of the insured vehicle, alongwith other benefits. Being dissatisfied with the order of the learned Tribunal, the Insurance Company has rushed to this Court and preferred First Appeal to redress its grievances.

¶13

3] However, pending First Appeal, the appellant insurance company deposited the decretal amount of Rs. 6,60,822/- as directed by this court. By this application, applicant seeks permission to withdraw the compensation amount deposited on behalf of appellant insurance company in this court. Admittedly, the amount awarded to the applicant/claimant is towards the physical disability caused to him in the vehicular accident. The leraned trial court appreciated the circumstances on record and passed the

¶14

910 sr.no..odt

¶15

{2}

¶16

impugned order which is agitated in this appeal.

¶17

4] Considering the nature of subject matter, and the fact that the amount of compensation is deposited by the appellant insurance company, I find it justifiable to allow the applicant to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited by the appellant in this court towards some sort of solace for his physical disability in the vehicular accident. It would not cause any prejudice to the insurance company. In contrast, it would sub service the cause of substantial justice. Hence, the application stands partly allowed. The original claimant/applicant is permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount of Rs.6,60,822/- deposited by the appellant in this court, on furnishing undertaking to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. Rest of the 50% amount be kept in a Fixed Deposit in a Nationalized bank till disposal of the appeal or until further orders to that effect. The application for withdrawal is disposed of accordingly.

¶18

5] So far as the application for condonation of delay of 32 days in filing the appeal is concerned, it is settled principle of law that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay, a liberal and pragmatic approach should be adopted by avoiding pedantic approach. In such circumstances, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and disposed of. Registry to take requisite steps for further process. On registration of appeal, Admit. Respective parties waive notice. List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

¶19

¶20

grt/-

Shankar Digamber (Kisan) Jigle v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr Its Authorized Signatory, Aurangabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Digamber (Kisan) Jigle v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr Its Authorized Signatory, Aurangabad

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

The Executive Engineer, M.I.D. Osmanabad Thr Gmidc Aurangabad Vs Rameshwar Dhondiba Shete and Ors.

The Executive Engineer, M.I.D. Osmanabad Thr Gmidc Aurangabad Vs Anil Sundar Giri and Ors.

The Executive Engineer, M.I.D. Osmanabad Thr Gmidc Aurangabad Vs Nagnath Basling Shete and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Thr Its Manager Yogesh Dilip Dhase Vs Taramati @ Tarabai Bhimrao Kamble and Ors.

The Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Nanded Thr Its Secretary Harischnadra Govindrao Deshmukh Vs the Assistant Director Sub-Regional Office Employees State Insurance Corporation and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Thr Its Manager Yogesh Dilip Dhase Vs Taramati @ Tarabai Bhimrao Kamble and Ors.