Allowed

Madhuri Ajay Sawant and Ors. v. the New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai

Bombay HC17 Feb 2023IA/678/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This interim order allows an application filed by an injured laborer seeking compensation for permanent partial disability and medical expenses, permitting her to withdraw 30% of the deposited amount upon undertaking, subject to final hearing on liability.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant permitted to withdraw 30% of deposited amount with interest subject to undertaking.

Madhuri Ajay Sawant and Ors. Vs the New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai — Bombay HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

29-IA-678-2023.doc

¶2

Shantanu Dhudum

¶3

Digitally signed bySHANTANU SHANTANUSHANKARSA SHANKARSADHUDUM DHUDUM Date: 2023.02.21 10:39:26 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 678 OF 2023

¶7

¶8

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.19683 OF 2022

¶9

Madhuri Ajay Sawant ….Applicant

¶10

In the matter between New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. ....Appellants Versus Madhuri Ajay Sawant & Ors. ….Respondents

¶11

Mrs. karishma Jhaveri i/b Navdeep Vora & Asso. for the Applicant/Appellants.

¶12

Mrs. Varsha Chavan for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Shankar Kale i/b S. G. Thorat for the Respondent Nos. 2 &3.

¶13

CORAM : S. G. DIGE, J.

¶14

DATE : 17^th FEBRUARY 2023.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned counsel for the Respondents.

¶17

The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant was injured in the accident. After the accident the Applicant has suffered permanent partial disability. The accident occurred in the

¶18

year 2015, since, then the Applicant has not received any

1/3

29-IA-678-2023.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

compensation. The applicant was working as a laborer. After the incident of accident she is unable to do any work. She needs the amount for daily expenses and for medical expenses. Hence, requested to allow the Application.

¶23

The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 strongly objected to allow the Application on the ground that the cheque which was given as premium of policy was dishonored. The intimation was given to the insurer and RTO Officer. In spite of that the tribunal has fixed the liability on Insurance Company. There is no liability of Insurance Company arise to pay the compensation, but this fact is not considered by the Tribunal and wrongly fixed liability on Insurance Company. The said fact is challenged before this court by way of appeal. Hence, requested to dismiss the Application.

¶24

The learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submits that appropriate order be passed.

¶25

I have heard both learned counsel.

¶26

Admittedly, the Applicant was injured in the accident. She has suffered 60% permanent disability in the said accident. She was laborer. She is required the amount for her daily expenses and for medical expenses. She has no source of income. The ground raised by

2/3

29-IA-678-2023.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

the Respondents can be considered at the time of final hearing. I pass

¶31

the following order.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i. Application is allowed.

¶34

ii. Applicant is permitted to withdraw 30% amount along with accrued interest thereon out of deposited

¶35

amount on furnishing undertaking.

¶36

iii. Application is disposed of.

¶37

(S. G. DIGE, J.)

¶38

3/3

Madhuri Ajay Sawant and Ors. v. the New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhuri Ajay Sawant and Ors. v. the New India Assurance Co.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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shri. Sandip Rameshlal Basrani and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Divya Deepak Kamble and Ors.

Smt.Vijaya Vidhyadhar Pathak and Anr. Vs the New India Assurance Company Limited

Mr. Farogh Ahd. Zahoor Ahd. Ansari Vs M/S. Kataria Transport Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolhapur Vs Kum. Riya Rajendra Shete and Ors.

Smt. Padmaja Pradeep Patil and Ors. Vs United India Insurance Company Limited