Allowed

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

Bombay HC8 Feb 2023IA/930/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim application regarding an accident claim where the deceased, sole earning member of the applicants, died, the court allowed the application to permit withdrawal of 30% of the deposited amount.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw 30% of deposited amount along with accrued interest upon furnishing undertaking.

Jayashri Rajkumar Dhansare and Ors. Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Limited, Sangli — Bombay HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

30-ia-930-2023.doc

¶2

Shubhada S Kadam

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 930 OF 2023 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) 23440 OF 2022

¶5

Jayashri Rajkumar Dhansare & Ors ….Applicants Versus

¶6

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Limited, Sangli through Divisional Controller ….Respondent/ Appellants.

¶7

Mr. Tejpal S Ingale, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. Dhanajayrao D. Rananaware, Advocate for the Respondent/ Appellant-MSTRC Limited.

¶8

CORAM : S. G. DIGE, J.

¶9

DATE : 8th FEBRUARY 2023.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the respondent - MSTRC Limited.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the deceased was the husband of the applicant No.1, father of applicant Nos.2 and 3 and son of applicant Nos.4 and 5. The deceased was the sole earning member of the applicants' family. The applicants have no source of income. The applicants need the amount for their

¶13

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR 1/3 KADAM Date: 2023.02.14 12:31:59 +0530

¶14

SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM

¶15

30-ia-930-2023.doc

¶16

Shubhada S Kadam

¶17

daily expenses and paying school fees of applicant Nos. 2 and 3. Hence, requested to allow the application.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondent - MSTRC Limited submits that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant and excessive compensation without any evidence on record. Learned counsel further submits that the accident had occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased but this fact is not considered by the Tribunal. The respondent - MSTRC Limited has challenged the impugned order by way of appeal. Hence, requested to dismiss the application.

¶19

I have heard both learned counsel. The deceased was the sole earning member of the applicants' family. The applicants need the amount for their daily expenses and for paying fees of applicant Nos. 2 and 3. The grounds raised by learned counsel for respondent-MSTRC can be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. Hence, I pass the following order :

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The application is allowed.

¶22

2/3

¶23

30-ia-930-2023.doc

¶24

Shubhada S Kadam

¶25

The applicants are permitted to withdraw 30% amount along with accrued interest thereon, out of the deposited amount, on furnishing undertaking.

¶26

The application is disposed of.

¶27

(S. G. DIGE, J.)

¶28

3/3

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai Vs Rashmi Jagdishwarnath Tripathi and Anr.

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mrs. Jennifer Alex Dsilva

Nivedita Rakesh Soni and Ors. Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

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

Tanmay Dilip Barate Vs Riyaz Abdulmajid Shaikh and Anr.

The Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Kolhapur Vs Smt. Sujata Naresh Patange and Ors.