Disposed

Surekha Rohidas Potale and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Bombay HC9 May 2024IA/7643/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company's appeal against a motor accident compensation award was pending; claimants sought withdrawal of deposited amount. The court allowed respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 to withdraw 75% of the deposit with accrued interest on an undertaking, directed apportionment per the tribunal award, and disposed of the interim application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Surekha Rohidas Potale and Ors. vs Oriental Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

8-IA-7643-2024-IN-FA-430-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7643 OF 2024 WITH

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.430 OF 2024

¶5

Surekha Rohidas¹ Potale and Ors. ...Applicants

¶6

In the matter between :-

¶7

Oriental Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant

¶8

vs.

¶9

Surekha Rohidas Potale and Ors.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

*****

¶12

Mr.Ravindra S. Pachundkar:-		Advocate for Applicants.
Ms.Poonam Mittal Mr.S.S.Dwivedi:-	i/b.	Advocate for Appellant – Insurance Company.

¶13

¶14

CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 19^th AUGUST 2024

¶15

P. C. :-

¶16

Heard learned Advocate for the Claimants – Respondent Nos.1,

¶17

2, 3 and 5. The Respondent No.1 is the wife and Respondent Nos.2

¶18

and 3 are the children of the deceased Rohidas. Whereas, Respondent

¶19

No.5 – Visaram is the father of the deceased. The Respondent No.4 –

¶20

Krishnabai is not represented. It is told that she might have expired.

¶21

Let, the Appellant – Insurance Company to serve her of this

1 Expired

Satish Sangar

1/3

8-IA-7643-2024-IN-FA-430-2024.doc

¶26

Appeal. Private notice, in addition, is allowed. Affidavit of service be

¶27

filed.

¶28

Even, the Respondents before this Court can also file the death

¶29

¶30

certificate, if they are having

¶31

These Respondents are praying for withdrawal.

¶32

I have perused the impugned judgment. The Appellant – Insurance Company took a defence about non existence of the policy and the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid licence and permit. Both the grounds are rejected by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (“Claims Tribunal”) in Para No.19.

¶33

The date of accident is 22^nd April 2015. The period of the policy is 19^th December 2014 to 18^th December 2015. The plea of absence of licence and permit was not proved by adducing evidence.

¶34

Rest of the grounds taken in this Appeal are, about the calculation and the income. There is a strong opposition for withdrawal of the amount. For the reasons stated above and for the reasons mentioned in the Application, the Respondents are entitled to withdraw 75%. The Claims Tribunal has made an apportionment in Para No.2 of the Operative Order. The Applicant No.4 – Krishnabai Visaram Potale (Respondent No.4) is not before this Court. Hence,

¶35

Satish Sangar

¶36

2/3

¶37

8-IA-7643-2024-IN-FA-430-2024.doc

¶38

order:-

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

(i) The Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 are permitted to withdraw 75% of the deposited amount along with accrued interest on furnishing an usual undertaking.

¶41

(ii) The Claims Tribunal to do an apportionment as mentioned in the Judgment / Award dated 21^st August 2019 as per the share allotted to them.

¶42

In view of the above, Interim Application stands disposed of .

¶43

Let, the Appellant – Insurance Company to file a compilation of

¶44

documents within four weeks.

¶45

Stand over to 24^th September 2024 .

¶46

[S. M. MODAK, J.]

¶47

Satish Sangar

¶48

3/3

Surekha Rohidas Potale and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Surekha Rohidas Potale and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sahebrao Dinkar Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra

Arun Gulabrao Nalawade Vs State of Maharashtra

Rajeshwar Hemchandra Kasar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Najmulhasen G. Mulla Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amit Dhanaji Ingale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deelip Tatoba Raje Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.