Disposed

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,Mumbai v. Dhanaji Shrirang Pisal and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Jan 2024IA/68/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company appealed against a motor accident compensation award challenging 100% functional disability, contributory negligence and quantum. The court found the Tribunal's finding prima facie sustainable and allowed the claimant to withdraw 60% of the awarded amount with accrued interest on an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Claimant permitted to withdraw 60% of awarded amount with accrued interest, subject to undertaking; delay condoned; stay confirmed; appeal admitted.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,Mumbai vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

53-IA-9702-24 IN FAST-144-24 WITH CONT. IA..doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.9702 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.144 OF 2024

¶4

Dhanaji Shrirang Pisal & Anr. …. Applicants

¶5

NILAM Digitally signed byNILAM SANTOSH SANTOSH KAMBLE KAMBLE Date: 2024.06.2716:45:19 +0530

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., …. Respondent Mumbai

¶8

WITH

¶9

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.68 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.69 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.144 OF 2024

¶10

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., …. Applicants Mumbai

¶11

V/s.

¶12

Dhanaji Shrirang Pisal & Anr. …. Respondent

¶13

Mr.Yuvraj Nanekar, for the Applicant and for the Respondent in First Appeal.

¶14

Mr.Pandit Kasar, for the Respondent and for the Appellant in First Appeal.

¶15

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

¶16

DATE : 25^th JUNE 2024

¶17

P.C:-

¶18

. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 3

¶20

53-IA-9702-24 IN FAST-144-24 WITH CONT. IA..doc

¶21

The present Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company primarily on the ground that the disability suffered by the Claimant is 70% ,whereas the Tribunal has considered functional disability of 100%. He also submits that the Claimant was partly responsible for the accident so also Insurance Company challenges the quantum. The challenge in quantum is primarily because of nature of injuries.

¶22

With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the judgment more particularly paragraph No.34, which is noted below :

¶23

“Paragraph-34-PW 3 Dilip is distillery incharge in the Sugar Factory. He adduced evidence on the job site of the petitioner. He stated that the distillery is in height of 27 meters, having 4 stages of 6 meters, of 3 meters each. There are pressure reading meters at every stage. The Distillery Chemist required to go at least 12 to 15 times at every stage to record the meter reading and to verify the functioning is smooth or not. He further stated that the Distillery Chemist is responsible to control the whole disability. His job is not sitting work but to walk here and there. He was asked to whether process log-book is available, to which he replied affirmative. However, notice is not issued to produce the said document/ register. Therefore, his evidence could not be shattered in the crossexamination.”

¶24

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 3

¶25

53-IA-9702-24 IN FAST-144-24 WITH CONT. IA..doc

¶26

The Tribunal has held that the Claimant lost the job

¶27

as a Distillery in-charge in a Sugar Factory. On account of the injury he is specifically discharged from the sugar factory. As such prima facie it cannot be said that the Tribunal has erred in holding the functional disability at 100%. In view of the judgment of the Tribunal discussed above and the prima facie discussion of the nature of injury and the loss suffered by the Claimant, it is appropriate to permit the Claimant to withdraw 60% of the amount granted by the Tribunal along with accrued interest thereon, on subject to an undertaking to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer of the M.A.C.P., Tribunal.

¶28

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.68 OF 2024

¶29

Delay is condoned.

¶30

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.69 OF 2024

¶31

Stay confirmed.

¶32

Appeal is admitted. On admission, learned counsel

¶33

Mr.Yuvraj Nanekar, waives notice for Respondents.

¶34

(ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.)

¶35

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 3

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,Mumbai v. Dhanaji Shrirang Pisal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,Mumbai v. Dhanaji Shrirang Pisal and Anr.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Subhabai Venunath Mahamuni Deceased through Lrs Gunderao Venunath Mahamuni and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Shantabai Shantaram Agre and Ors.

The Executive Engineer Vs Mahbub Shah Abdul Shah Deceased Thr Lrs

Rahul Adinath Gore Vs Municipal Commissioner Aurangabad Municipal Corporation

Dinesh Rameshlal Kariya Vs Sachin Bhanudas Misal

Tulsabai Kaniram Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector and Others