Allowed

Smt. Madhu Sidhesh Kumar @ Sidhesh Sing and Ors. v. Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Bombay HC13 Feb 2023IA/1262/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An interim application in a compensation appeal was allowed. The single-judge Bench, noting the applicants' lack of income and trauma from the deceased's death, permitted them to withdraw 30% of the deposited amount with accrued interest on filing an undertaking. Respondent's defenses were postponed for the final hearing.

What did the court decide?

Applicants permitted to withdraw 30% of deposited amount with accrued interest on filing an undertaking.

Smt. Madhu Sidhesh Kumar @ Sidhesh Sing and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

23.IA.1262.23 IN FA(ST).22112.22.odt

¶2

RAMESHWAR DILWALE

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1262 OF 2023

¶5

¶6

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 22112 OF 2022

¶7

Madhu Sidhesh Kumar @ Sidhesh Singh & Ors. ….Applicants Versus Divisional Manager, M.S.R.T.C., Nashik ….Respondent.

¶8

¶9

Mr.Pritesh Bohade Advocate for Applicants. Ms. Gargi Warunjikar i/b Nitesh V. Bhutekar Advocate for the Respondent.

¶10

...

¶11

CORAM : S. G. DIGE, J.

¶12

DATE : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2023.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶15

Learned counsel for applicants submits that deceased was the Karta of applicants’ family. After the death of deceased, the entire life of the applicants is disturbed and still suffering from trauma. Applicants have no sufficient source for survival. It will take time to decide the first appeal. The accident has happened before 7 years but applicants have not received any compensation. Hence, requested to allow the application.

¶16

1/2

¶17

23.IA.1262.23 IN FA(ST).22112.22.odt

¶18

RAMESHWAR DILWALE

¶19

Learned counsel for Respondent-MARTC strongly objected to allow the application on the ground that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the deceased as he was wrongly overtaking the bus but this fact is not considered by the Tribunal. The Respondent has challenged the impugned order, hence, requested to dismiss the application.

¶20

I have heard both learned counsel.

¶21

Deceased was the pillar of applicants family. Applicants have no source of income. They need the amount for their daily expenses. The grounds raised by the respondent-MSRTC can be considered at the time of final hearing.

¶22

Hence, I pass following order.

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

I. Application is allowed.

¶25

ii. Applicants are permitted to withdraw 30% amount along with accrued interest thereon out of deposited amount on furnishing undertaking. Application is disposed off.

¶26

(S. G. DIGE, J.)

¶27

2/2

Smt. Madhu Sidhesh Kumar @ Sidhesh Sing and Ors. v. Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Madhu Sidhesh Kumar @ Sidhesh Sing and Ors. v. Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

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 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Nazma Abdul Hamid Boxwala (Alias) Shaikh and Ors.

Jayashri Rajkumar Dhansare and Ors. Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Limited, Sangli

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt. Manju Singh and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Swati Kumar Mane and Ors.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through Divisional Manager, Nashik Vs Kumar Pradip Sham Borade and Anr.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through the Divisional Manager, Nashik Vs Smt. Radha Deepak Kulkarni and Ors.