Allowed

Jayshree Kirti Mehta and Ors. v. Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Its Manager, Hemant Gaonkar, Mumbai

Bombay HC6 Dec 2023IA/3437/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim application by insurance beneficiaries to withdraw a larger percentage of the interim compensation award regarding an accident claim, despite surviving a prior objection.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of 30% amount from the remaining 75% balance along with accrued interest upon furnishing usual undertaking.

What the court decided

Jayshree Kirti Mehta and Ors. Vs Cholamandalam M.S. General… — Insurance | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

30-IA--3437-2022-fast-1664-2021.doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3437 OF 2022
IN

¶6

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.1664 OF 2021

¶7

Jayshree Kirti Mehta and Ors.….Applicants

¶8

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

¶9

Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. … Appellant

¶10

 Versus
Jayshree Kirti Mehta and Ors. ….Respondents

¶11

Mr. Abhijit Desai, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. Rajesh Kanojia i/b. Res Juris, Advocate for Appellant.

¶12

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 6^th DECEMBER, 2023

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

1. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that

¶15

deceased was the sole earning member of the applicant’s family.
Applicants have no source of income. They need the amount for daily
expenses, hence requested to allow the application.

¶16

2.Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company

¶17

strongly objects to allow the application on the ground that earlier,
applicants have permitted 25% withdrawal. At the time of accident the
driver of insured vehicle has not carried effective and valid driving licence.

¶18

In spite of that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation which is

¶19

1/2

¶20

S.S.Kilaje

¶21

30-IA--3437-2022-fast-1664-2021.doc

¶22

challenged by the Insurance Company before this Court. Hence, requested
to reject the application.

¶23

3.I have heard both the learned Counsel. The deceased was the
sole earning member of the applicants’ family. Applicants need the
amount for their daily expenses. Applicants have no source of income. The
grounds raised by the appellant-Insurance Company can be considered at
the time of final hearing of the appeal. Hence, Considering this fact, I pass
following order :

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

(i) The application is allowed.

¶26

(ii) The applicants are permitted to withdraw 30% amount

¶27

out of remaining 75% amount along with accrued
interest thereon on furnishing usual undertaking.

¶28

4.The Application is disposed off.

¶29

SONALI Digitally signedby SONALISATISH SATISHKILAJE KILAJEDate:2023.12.0811:12:04+0530

¶30

 (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶31

2/2

Jayshree Kirti Mehta and Ors. v. Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Its Manager, Hemant Gaonkar, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Jayshree Kirti Mehta and Ors. v. Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Its Manager, Hemant Gaonkar, 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. Pappu Gangaram Yadav and Anr. Vs Mr. Nandankumar Kailash Jha and Ors.

Future Generali India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt.Sarika Ramdas Dhebe and Ors.

Harshada Rakesh Bhadrike and Ors. Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisional Controller, Raigad

The Divisional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited vs Mr. Sindhu Ashok Rathod and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Vikas Vishwanath Mishra and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai Vs Smt. Babita @ Babitakumari Arun Sharma and Ors.