Allowed

Rohit Jayaraj Menon v. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Apr 2024IA/7697/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An interim application under 37-IA for permission to partially withdraw accident compensation was allowed. The relaxation of the condition regarding a valid driving license of the opposing party was deferred to the final hearing, given the applicant's severe disability.

What did the court decide?

Permitted to withdraw 50% amount out of deposit along with accrued interest on furnishing undertaking.

Rohit Jayaraj Menon Vs Reliance General Insurance… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

37-IA-7679-2024.doc

¶2

Gayatri Shimpi

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7697 OF 2024

¶6

¶7

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 12281 OF 2023

¶8

Rohit Jayaraj Menon ….Applicant

¶9

In the matter between

¶10

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd ….Appellant Versus Rohit Jayaraj Menon and Anr. ….Respondents -----

¶11

Ms. Varsha Chavan, Advocate for the Applicant and Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.

¶12

Mr. Akshay Kulkarni, Advocate for the Appellant/Insurance Co.

¶13

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶14

DATE : 19^th APRIL, 2024.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

By this Application, Applicant is seeking withdrawal of the

¶17

amount .

¶18

It is contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that

¶19

Digitally signed GAYATRI by GAYATRIRAJENDRA RAJENDRA SHIMPI SHIMPI Date:2024.04.24 13:51:02 +0530

¶20

due to accidental injuries, the Applicant has suffered 76% permanent physical disability. Applicant has no source of income, he needs the

1/2

37-IA-7679-2024.doc

Gayatri Shimpi

amount for his daily expenses. Hence requested to allow the Application.

¶25

Learned counsel for Appellant – Insurance Company strongly objected to allow the Application on the ground that at the time of accident, the driver of offending vehicle was not holding effective and valid driving licence. It was proved before the Tribunal in spite of that the Tribunal has passed pay and recovery order, which is erroneous. Hence requested to reject the Application.

¶26

I have heard both the learned counsel.

¶27

Applicant has suffered 76% permanent physical disability. He

¶28

has no source of income. He needs the amount for his daily expenses. The issued raised by learned counsel for Respondent/Insurance Company can be considered at the time of final hearing of the Appeal and, I pass by following order.

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i) Application is allowed.

¶31

(ii) The Applicant is permitted to withdraw 50% amount out of deposit amount along with accrued interest thereon, on furnishing undertaking.

¶32

The Application stands disposed off.

¶33

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶34

2/2

Rohit Jayaraj Menon v. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Jayaraj Menon v. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai and Anr.

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

Magma Hdi General Insurance Company Ltd.,Thane Vs Mr. Sandeep Jayaram Khot and Anr.

Mr.Pratap Pandurang Bhoir Vs Mr.Kailas Nanabhau Bavle and Anr.

Mr. Sandeep Jayaram Khot and Anr. Vs Magma Hdi General Insurance Company Ltd.,Thane and Anr.

Prasad Satish Bandivdekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai Vs Mohini Vinayak Bhegade and Ors.

Mr. Bhimrao Ramchandra Lad and Anr. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.