Partly allowed

Anita Goutam Kamble and Ors. v. Maharashtra Sate Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisional Controller, Kolhapur

Bombay HC2 Jul 2024IA/9782/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of an application for condoning delay. It admitted a first appeal filed by an Insurance Company challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award on grounds of quantum and negligence. The Court confirmed an earlier stay on the impugned order and disposed of interim applications regarding delay and stay.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; appeal admitted with notice waived to respondents 1, 2, 3; stay on impugned order confirmed; withdrawal of 70% of compensation permitted with an undertaking.

Anita Goutam Kamble and Ors. vs Maharashtra Sate Road… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

42-ia-15665-2023-fast-25768-2023.doc

¶2

Shubhada S Kadam

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.9782 OF 2024 (withdrawal)

¶5

in FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 25768 OF 2023

¶6

Anita Goutam Kamble and ors. …. Applicants

¶7

In the matter of

¶8

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation … Appellant through Divisional Controller, Kolhapur

¶9

versus

¶10

Anita Goutam Kamble and ors. …. Respondents

¶11

with INTERIM APPLICATION NO.15665 OF 2023 (delay) and INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 15667 OF 2023 (stay) WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 25768 OF 2023

¶12

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation … Applicant/ through Divisional Controller, Kolhapur Appellant

¶13

versus

¶14

Anita Goutam Kamble and ors.

¶15

…. Respondents

¶16

Mr. Nitesh V. Bhutekar, Advocate for the Appellant-Insurance Company. Mr. Avesh A.Ghadge i/b. Mr. Akshay Kulkarni, Advocate for the Applicants/Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶17

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

¶18

DATE : 2^nd JULY, 2024.

¶19

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2024.07.04 10:36:22 +0530

¶20

P.C. :

¶21

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 38 days

¶22

1/3

¶23

42-ia-15665-2023-fast-25768-2023.doc

¶24

Shubhada S Kadam

¶25

in filing the appeal is condoned. Interim Application No.15665 of 2023 is allowed and disposed of. The appeal be registered.

¶26

The present appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company on the ground of quantum and negligence. However, the Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence, more specifically, in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the impugned judgment, has held that the rider was driving his motor-cycle on the left side and was coming from the opposite direction. The road was also straight and without any turn and that there is an offence registered against the bus driver. The Tribunal has held that there is nothing produced on record to indicate that the motorcycle rider – deceased was negligent. The Tribunal has also relied on the spot panchanama and complaint in the FIR, as such, the prima facie view of the Tribunal is proper. So also on the aspect of quantum, the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.8010/ per month. The deceased was a permanent employee at the Petrol Pump and salary certificate is proved, as such, it cannot be said that the income considered of the deceased was exorbitant.

¶27

Taking all these factors into consideration, the claimants are permitted to withdraw 70% of the compensation along with accrued interest thereon in the proportion permitted by the Tribunal subject to an undertaking to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolhapur. The Interim Application No.9782 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of.

¶28

2/3

¶29

42-ia-15665-2023-fast-25768-2023.doc

¶30

Shubhada S Kadam

¶31

The first appeal is admitted.

¶32

On admission, Mr. Ghadge learned counsel, waives notice for

¶33

respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.

¶34

Call for record and proceedings.

¶35

The stay to the impugned order, granted earlier, stands confirmed till the final disposal of the appeal.

¶36

The Interim Application No.15667 of 2023 stands disposed of.

¶37

(ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.)

¶38

3/3

Anita Goutam Kamble and Ors. v. Maharashtra Sate Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisional Controller, Kolhapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Goutam Kamble and Ors. v. Maharashtra Sate Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisional Controller, Kolhapur

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

Neeta Suhas Nikale and Anr. vs General Managaer,Sbi G.I.C.Ltd. and Anr.

Agnel Ganpat Gavali vs the Chief Officer, Silvassa Municipal Council and Anr.

Agnel Ganpat Gavali vs the Chief Officer, Silvassa Municipal Council and Anr.

Ranu Mundhada vs Lakshmi Properties Ltd. Now Known as Shrinika Infra Limited

Vandana Raju Kokane and Ors. vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, Pune

Smt Devibai Nankchand Relan Since Deceased His Legal Heirs Nandakishore Nanakchand Relan vs Nitin Raut Deputy Collectr