Dismissed

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Pruthviraj S/O. Arunsingh Pardeshi

Bombay HC8 Dec 2023FA/255/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal against the assessment of the claimant's monthly income at Rs.10,000/- by the Tribunal. The court found the assessment reasonable given the evidence and ordered the statutory amount transmission to the Tribunal with accrued interest.

What did the court decide?

The appeal dismissed; claimant permitted to withdraw deposited amount with interest; statutory amount transmitted to Solapur Tribunal.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Pruthviraj… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

12-fa-255-2021.doc

¶2

Shubhada S Kadam

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 255 OF 2021

¶4

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited

¶5

Near Employment Chowk,

¶6

Railway Line, Solapur. ….Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Pruthviraj S/o. Arunsigh Pardeshi. Age : 45 years, Occ: Nil, Residing at Sadepur, Taluka South, Solapur, District : Solapur. 2. Shrishail s/o. Nagayya Swami Age : 33 years, Occ: Business, Residing at 71, Railway Line, Ramlal Chowk, Solapur. ….Respondents

¶9

Mr. Pandit Kasar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. R. S. Alange, Advocate for the Respondent No.1/claimant.

¶10

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶11

DATE : 8^th DECEMBER, 2023.

¶12

Oral Judgment. :

¶13

The issue involved in this appeal is the income of claimant is

¶14

considered on higher side.

¶15

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2023.12.21 15:54:42 +0530

¶16

1/3

¶17

12-fa-255-2021.doc

¶18

Shubhada S Kadam

¶19

It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that claimant was doing milk business. In spite of that, the Tribunal has considered his monthly income at Rs.10,000/-. There is no evidence produced on record to show that the claimant was earning Rs.10,000/per month. Hence, requested to allow the appeal.

¶20

It is the contention of learned counsel for respondents/ claimants that claimant was doing milk business and he was getting an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month from the said business. Witnesses have been examined to prove the said income but the Tribunal has considered the income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/- per month only. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded future prospects. Hence, future prospects be awarded to the claimants.

¶21

I have heard both learned counsel, perused the judgment and order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solapur (for short “the Tribunal”).

¶22

To prove the income of the claimant, he has examined himself at Exhibit-20. He has stated that he was doing agricultural work and milk business and used to earn Rs.3,00,000/- per annum from agricultural affairs and Rs.25,000/- per month from milk business. In support of his evidence, claimant examined CW-4 – Shrishail Mallinath Swami at Exhibit-37. He has stated that he runs milk business in the name and styleas “Veerbhadreshawar Agency”. He supplied milk to customers by collecting it from others. In the year 2016-2017, claimant brought milk to

¶23

2/3

¶24

12-fa-255-2021.doc

¶25

Shubhada S Kadam

¶26

his agency. This witness was paying monthly Rs.20,000/- to Rs.22,000/to claimant vide receipts which are at “Exhibit-38 collectively”. In crossexamination, this witness admitted that he has not maintained register showing the names of person who would bring milk to his agency and the names of customers. Considering the evidence on record and receipts at Exhibit-38 (collectively), the Tribunal has considered monthly income of the claimants at Rs.10,000/-. I do not find infirmity in it. As admittedly, the claimant was doing milk business and agricultural works.

¶27

In view of above, I pass the following order :

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.

¶30

The claimant is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon.

¶31

The statutory amount be transmitted to the Tribunal at Solapur along with accrued interest thereon. The parties are at liberty to withdraw it as per Rule.

¶32

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶33

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶34

3/3

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Pruthviraj S/O. Arunsingh Pardeshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Pruthviraj S/O. Arunsingh Pardeshi

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

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thane Thr.Its Divisional Manager Vs Smt. Dagdabai Gida @ Bhika Shinde and Ors.

Smt. Madhu Ramsagar Pande and Ors. Vs Mr. Ramesh Bhikaji Shinde and Anr.

Smt. Ranju Pratapsingh Jwalaprasad @ Jwalapratap Singh and Ors. Vs H. Mangaldas and Company and Anr.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mr. Ramesh Bhau Kadam and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai Thr. the Divisional Manager Vs Pishta Ashok Parihar and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai Vs Dharmawati Rajkumar Soni and Anr.