Disposed

Sunayana Vijay Patil v. the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.

Bombay HC23 Aug 2024CA/8748/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought permission to withdraw 75% of the compensation deposited following a Tribunal award under MV Act S. 166. Court permitted withdrawal pending undertaking, keeping minor's share in fixed deposit.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw 75% of the deposit amount subject to undertaking; minor's share kept in fixed deposit.

Sunayana Vijay Patil Vs the Bajaj Allianz General… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 ca 8748.24 corrected.odt

¶2

2024:BHC-AUG:20338

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

990 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8748 OF 2024 (withdrawal) IN FA/1007/2024

¶5

Sunayana Vijay Patil and others VERSUS

¶6

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd

¶7

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Patil Shrikant S. Advocate for Respondent 1 : Mr. M. R. Deshmukh Mr. B.L. Patil advocate for respondent No.5.

¶8

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. Dated : August 23, 2024

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

By this application, the applicants/original claimants are seeking withdrawal of the amount deposited by the appellant insurance company in pursuance of the award passed by the Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶11

Mr. Patil, learned advocate appearing for the applicants submits that deceased was highly educated person and maintaining his family. He died in a motor vehicular accident. The claimants have lost bread winner and, therefore, they seeks permission for withdrawal of the amount deposited by the insurance company in pursuance of the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶12

Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-insurance company vehemently opposed the prayer. He submits that this is a case of contributory negligence. Deceased was driving the car, ramped into tailor.

¶13

¶14

ca 8748.24 corrected.odt

¶15

In the alternate, he submits that even if it is assumed that deceased was occupant, this is a case of contributory negligence.

¶16

Having considered the submissions advanced, it is apparent that deceased lost life in the motor vehicular accident. Driver of the offending vehicle was prosecuted by the police authorities. No evidence is brought on record to controvert contents of police papers. Deceased was salaried man and income tax payer. Assessment of the compensation is passed on impeachable evidence. Consequently, there is no impediment in permitting the claimants to withdraw 75% of the amount deposited by the appellant/insurance company subject to filing of usual undertaking to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. Civil application stands disposed off.

¶17

The amount that falls to the share of minor applicant no.2 shall be kept in the fixed deposit in her name.

¶18

( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )

¶19

aaa-

Sunayana Vijay Patil v. the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunayana Vijay Patil v. the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Punju Nikam and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Collector Aurangabad and Ors.

Sanjay Mango Mali and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Collector Aurangabad and Ors.

Bira Mahadu Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Aurangabad and Ors.

Mohan Tayappa Lambture vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mahesh Uttamrao Mokashe vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Smt Kamal Sanjay Varpe