Disposed

Swajay @ Amar Narahari Bhosle v. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Divisional Manager Rishika T. Ojha

Bombay HC1 Dec 2021MCA/220/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In motor accident appeal arising from judgment in favour of injured applicant seeking withdrawal of further deposited amount from court due to financial distress and non-examination of doctor by insurance company.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of directing release of ₹5,00,000/- to applicant subject to undertaking to return amount with interest if appeal is allowed.

Swajay @ Amar Narahari Bhosle Vs the New India… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

27-MCA-220-2021-FA-17-2017.DOC

¶2

Andreza

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 220 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2017

¶5

Swajay @ Amar Narahari Bhosle … Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By …Respondents Divisional Manager Rishika T. Ojha

¶8

Mr. Nilesh V. S. Shirodkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. P. Shirodkar, Advocate holding for Mr. Amey Kakodkar, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶9

¶10

CORAM: MANISH PITALE, J DATED: 27^th November, 2021

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1. By this application, the Applicant is seeking withdrawal of amount of ₹16,89,272/-, lying in this Court.

¶13

2. The Insurance Company has filed the Appeal challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in favour of the Respondent, Applicant herein. At the time of admission and grant of interim stay, the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the entire decretal amount. Consequently, an amount of ₹31,89,272/- was deposited.

¶14

3. It is an admitted position that by an earlier order passed in the year 2017, this Court permitted the Respondent (Applicant) to withdraw ₹ 15,00,000/-.

¶15

Page 1 of 3 27^th November 2021

¶16

27-MCA-220-2021-FA-17-2017.DOC

¶17

4. The Insurance Company has opposed the present application stating that sufficient amount was already released in favour of the Applicant and that the Appellant-Insurance Company has a very strong case to demonstrate that the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the Tribunal in favour of the Respondent is unsustainable, particularly in the light of non-examination of the Doctor.

¶18

5. This Court has considered the contents of the present application. The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has no source of income and the injury caused to him has resulted in the Applicant not being able to pursue his business and that the Applicant is facing notices from Banks for loans that he had taken.

¶19

6. Having considered the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice that the hearing of the Appeal is expedited and, in the meanwhile, the Applicant is permitted to withdraw a further amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- from this Court.

¶20

7. In view of the above, the application is disposed of by directing the release of ₹5,00,000/- in favour of the Applicant subject to the Applicant filing an undertaking that in the event the Appeal is allowed, the Applicant shall return the said amount to the Appellant with such interest as this Court may direct.

¶21

Page 2 of 3 27^th November 2021

¶22

27-MCA-220-2021-FA-17-2017.DOC

¶23

8. The hearing of the Appeal is expedited.

¶24

MANISH PITALE, J

¶25

ANDREZA PEREIRA Digitally signed by ANDREZA PEREIRA Date: 2021.12.01 17:13:32 +05'30'

¶26

Page 3 of 3 27^th November 2021

Swajay @ Amar Narahari Bhosle v. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Divisional Manager Rishika T. Ojha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swajay @ Amar Narahari Bhosle v. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Divisional Manager Rishika T. Ojha

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

Shashikant Chimulkar., Vs Sanjana Usapkar.

Satellite Syndicate, Rep. by Its Partner, Rajesh Mohan Gaunkar Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secrtary and 2 Ors.

Seby Antonio Dias and 27 Ors., Vs Amitech Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Director, Sudim Naik and 5 Ors.

Ramanand Gunaji Amonkar and 5 Ors. Vs Raghuvir Shamba Amonkar (Dec) through Lrs.

Rina Dinesh Kumar Gond, Thr Poa, Kapil Gaud Vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.

Madhav Atmaram Sahakari and 8 Ors., Vs Pandurang X. Tilve (Dec) Thr. His Lrs. and 2 Ors.