Allowed

Kanchan Ramesh @ Chandrama Pal and Ors. v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

Bombay HC19 Jun 2023IA/12615/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed withdrawal of 30% of the motor accident decretum deposited by the respondent insurer, conditional upon undertaking to return the amount with interest if the pending appeal succeeds. Balance to be apportioned per Tribunal order.

What did the court decide?

30% of the deposited decretal amount ordered withdrawn by the applicants upon furnishing an undertaking to return it with interest if the appeal fails.

Kanchan Ramesh @ Chandrama Pal and Ors. Vs Bajaj Allianz General… — Insurance | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

This order is modified vide speaking to minutes of the order dated 21^st June 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.12615 OF 2023
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.4735 OF 2023

¶5

KANCHAN RAMESH@CHANDRAMA PAL & ORS.)...APPLICANTS

¶6

V/s.

¶7

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.)...RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr.T.J.Mendon, Advocate for the Applicants.

¶9

Mr.Akshay Kulkarni i/b. Mr.S.S.Diwas, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶10

CORAM:ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE:19th JUNE 2023.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1.This is an application seeking withdrawal of the decretal amount
deposited in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, by the
claimants. Mr.Mendon, learned Counsel for the Interim Applicant,
would submit that the claimants are a widow, a minor daughter and
parents of the deceased, who met with an accident on 13th October
2016 resulting in his death. He would submit that the deceased was
working as a driver for Gayatri Roadlines Private Limited. Learned

¶13

avk 1/3

¶14

This order is modified vide speaking to minutes of the order dated 21^st June 2023

¶15

Counsel would submit that the claimants were completely dependent
on the income of the deceased, although till date they have managed
some how or the other on their agricultural income. Learned Counsel
would submit that the claim has been allowed in favour of the
claimants but the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the same has
filed this Appeal. Learned Counsel submits that the withdrawal be
permitted subject to the terms and conditions which the court may
impose.

¶16

2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has no objection if

¶17

the said amount is allowed to be withdrawn on certain conditions being
imposed.

¶18

3.After hearing the learned counsel and having perused the
application, the following order is passed :

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(i)Let 30% of amount deposited in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Mumbai, by the Insurance Company be allowed to be withdrawn
on furnishing an undertaking that in case the appeal is decided
against Applicants, they would return the said amount along with
interest within a period of four weeks.

¶21

avk 2/3

¶22

This order is modified vide speaking to minutes of the order dated 21^st June 2023

¶23

(ii) Let the amount withdrawn be apportioned in the proportion as contained in paragraph 4 of the order dated 20^th August 2022 of the Tribunal.

¶24

4. The application stands disposed in above terms.

¶25

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶26

avk 3/3

Kanchan Ramesh @ Chandrama Pal and Ors. v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchan Ramesh @ Chandrama Pal and Ors. v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

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

Shri. Arun Dinkar Lingras and Ors. Vs Shri. Raunak Subhash Bhosale and Ors.

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Vahatuk Bhavan, Mumbai Vs Mina Kashinath Zanje and Anr.

Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Vs Shri.Pradeep Gyanchandra Dubey

Ganesh Vyankatesh Parasnis Vs Guruji Tukaram Jadhav

The Manager, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mr. Nivrutti Pandu Padalkar and Anr.

Shiamak Fali Marshal and Anr. Vs Mr. Munir Bashir Shaikh and Anr.