Allowed

The Commissioner Kolhapur Municipal Transport, Kolhapur v. Padmakar Shivaji Jadhav and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Apr 2024FA/632/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident appeal by the vehicle-owning Corporation against a Tribunal award holding it liable due to non-production of the insurance policy. The policy later produced showed the vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2, who admitted this. The High Court allowed the appeal and directed the insurer to pay the compensation.

What did the court decide?

Insurer (Respondent No.2) to pay/deposit tribunal-fixed compensation plus accrued interest within eight weeks; claimant may withdraw; statutory amount transferred to Tribunal.

The Commissioner Kolhapur Municipal Transport, Kolhapur Vs Padmakar… — Insurance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

18- FA 632 of 2018.doc

¶2

Tikam

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 632 OF 2024

¶4

WITH

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 15468 OF 2023

¶6

The Commissioner Kolhapur Municipal Transport … Appellant versus Padmakar Shivaji Jadhav & Ors. …. Respondents

¶7

Mr. Abhijit Adagule a/w. Mr. Sangram Yadav, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Jayant Bardeskar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. Kiran C. Shinde, AGP for the State- Respondent No.2

¶8

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶9

DATE : 25^th APRIL, 2024.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

This appeal is preferred by owner of the offending vehicleCorporation against the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kolhapur (for short “Tribunal”).

¶12

It is contention of learned counsel for Appellant -Corporation that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2. During the trial, the copy of insurance policy was not produced before the Tribunal. Hence, Tribunal has observed that there

¶13

1/4

¶14

18- FA 632 of 2018.doc

¶15

Tikam

¶16

was breach of terms and conditions of the policy as there was no insurance policy on the date of accident. On that ground, the Tribunal has directed the Appellant to pay the compensation and exonerated the insurance company. Learned counsel further submits that after passing of the judgment and order, the Appellant has found the insurance policy and it was produced before the Tribunal. The tribunal by order below Exhibit

¶17

‘1’ dated 5^th April, 2022, has observed that the application filed by the Appellant under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code does not fit within the ambit of Section 151. On that ground, the Tribunal has rejected the application. Learned counsel further submits that Respondent No.2 is director of the insurance Company has admitted the fact about the insurance policy. Hence requested to allow the appeal.

¶18

Learned counsel for Respondent No.1-Claimant submits that appropriate order be passed.

¶19

Learned counsel for Respondent No.2- State submits that the Appellant could not produce the insurance policy before the Tribunal. The order passed by the Tribunal is legal and valid and no interference is required.

¶20

It have heard all learned counsels perused the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. The insurance policy produced after passing judgment and order shows that the at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2. The Respondent

¶21

2/4

¶22

18- FA 632 of 2018.doc

¶23

Tikam

¶24

No.2 has accepted the said fact by their letter dated 5^th January, 2021. Learned AGP for Respondent No.2 has fairly submitted that at the time of accident, the insurance policy was in existence.

¶25

In my view, the Appellant could not produce the insurance policy of the offending vehicle because of that the impugned order has been passed by the Tribunal. Later on, the Appellant – Corporation has produced the insurance policy. In fact, it was the duty of Respondent No.2 to state before the Tribunal that offending vehicle was insured with them, but they have not stated in the written statement about the insurance of the offending vehicle before the Tribunal. Considering the above facts, I pass following order.

¶26

(a) Appeal is allowed.

¶27

(b) The Respondent No.2 shall pay the compensation to the Claimant as fixed by the tribunal along with accrued interest thereon.

¶28

(c) The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation as fixed by the Tribunal along with accrued interest thereon within eight weeks after receipt of the Order.

¶29

(d) The Claimant is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon.

¶30

(e) The statutory amount be transferred to the Tribunal along with accrued interest thereon. The parties are at liberty to withdraw

¶31

3/4

¶32

18- FA 632 of 2018.doc

¶33

Tikam

¶34

it, as per Rule.

¶35

All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶36

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶37

4/4

The Commissioner Kolhapur Municipal Transport, Kolhapur v. Padmakar Shivaji Jadhav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner Kolhapur Municipal Transport, Kolhapur v. Padmakar Shivaji Jadhav and Ors.

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

Renuka Kumar Kale and Anr. Vs Delhi Gujarat Fleet Carrier Pvt. Ltd., Solapur and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Shri. Rahul Vikas Shah and Ors.

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt.Shambhavi Shaunak Kanhav and Anr.

The National Insurance Co.Ltd.,Solapur Thr. Branch Manager vs Shri. Ashok Bhimsha Bansode and Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai vs Arwa Husein Jetpurwala and Ors.

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