Disposed

Shri Ladubai Sanjay Pawar and Ors. v. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Navi Mumbai

Bombay HC21 Feb 2023IA/1222/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim application during a first civil appellate appeal for compensation relating to a motor accident, the single judge allowed the application and permitted the appellants to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount along with accrued interest.

What did the court decide?

The application is allowed; Applicants permitted to withdraw 50% of deposited amount with accrued interest on undertaking.

Shri Ladubai Sanjay Pawar and Ors. Vs Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Navi Mumbai — Bombay HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

28-ia-1222-2023 in fast-21354-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1222 OF 2023 IN

¶4

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.21354 OF 2021

¶5

Digitally signed NILAM by NILAM SANTOSH SANTOSHKAMBLE KAMBLE Date: 2023.02.22 11:08:24 +0530

¶6

Shri.Ladubai Sanjay Pawar & Ors. ...Applicants Versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd Navi Mumbai ....Respondent

¶7

Mr.Yuvraj Narvankar, for the Appellant. Ms.Kalpana R. Trivedi, for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : S.G. DIGE, J.

¶9

DATE : 21 FEBRUARY 2023

¶10

P.C:-

¶11

. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants and the learned counsel for the Respondent.

¶12

The learned counsel for the Applicants submit that the Applicants are the legal heirs of the deceased. The deceased was only earning member of Applicant’s family. The Applicants were dependent on deceased. The accident was occurred on 18 October 2012. Since then the Applicant’s have not received any compensation. The Applicant’s are facing financial issues. They require the amount for daily expenses. Hence, requested to allow the Application.

¶13

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 2

¶14

28-ia-1222-2023 in fast-21354-2021.doc

¶15

The learned counsel for the Respondents strongly objected to allow the Application on the ground that the Tribunal has awarded the income of deceased on higher side without any evidence. There was contributory negligence of the deceased in the said accident. But this fact was not considered by the Tribunal. Hence requested to dismiss the Application.

¶16

I have heard both learned counsel.

¶17

The deceased was sole earning member of the Applicant’s family. They have no source of income. They require amount for their daily expenses. The issues raised by the Respondents can be considered at the time of final hearing of the Appeal. Hence, I pass following order.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(i) The Application is allowed. (ii) The Applicants are permitted to withdraw 50% amount out of the deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon on furnishing undertaking.

¶20

(iii) The Application is disposed of.

¶21

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 2

Shri Ladubai Sanjay Pawar and Ors. v. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Navi Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ladubai Sanjay Pawar and Ors. v. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Navi Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Govind Mahadev Balivant (Decesed)through His Legal Heirs 1A) Shobha Govind Balivant and Ors. Vs Shri Annaso Chimaji Ghatage and Ors.

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt. Rani Jagdish Sahadevan and Ors.

Rani Jagdish Sahadevan and Ors. Vs Oriental Insce Co.Ltd. and Ors.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Pranati Sinha and Ors.

Vitthal Krishnaji Raikar Decd. through Lhrs Vs Amarchand Kisanchand Agarwal

Smt. Smita Dayanand Sawant and Ors. Vs Shri. Mahesh Janu Thakur and Anr.