Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Branch Manager through Its Authorized Signatory v. Appasaheb Babulal Bodakhe and Others

Bombay HC9 Oct 2024WP/2159/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner Insurance Company challenged the MACT's rejection of an amendment to its written statement alleging misclassification of a vehicle. The High Court held the amendment redundant as the defense was already pleaded and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as the intended amendment was redundant as the defense was already pleaded in the written statement.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Branch Manager through… — Insurance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:24437

¶2

IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

1030 WRIT PETITION NO. 2159 OF 2023

¶4

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Through Its Branch Manager Through Its Authorized Signatory VERSUS

¶5

Appasaheb Babulal Bodakhe And Others

¶6

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshpande Dhananjay P. Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rajebhosale Sandeep B.

¶7

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. Dated : October 09, 2024.

¶8

PER COURT :-

¶9

By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 23/12/2022, in M.A.C.P.No.370/2018, passed by the MACT, Aurangabad, wherein the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the Insurance Company/petitioner is rejected. The petitioner, through the application at Exhibit 200, pleaded to amend the written statement to include the contention that the vehicle was registered under the category of heavy goods vehicle, whereas the insured had proposed the said vehicle as a "Misc. Class D" type of vehicle. The premium for "Misc. Class D" vehicles is less than that for heavy goods carrying vehicles. This amounts to misrepresentation of material facts while purchasing the insurance policy, thereby rendering the insurance contract void ab initio .

¶10

The intended amendment to the written statement, however, appears redundant upon perusal, as the insurance company has already taken the defense that the vehicle was not insured with respondent No.3 at the time of the accident. Additionally, it was stated that the insured

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

1030 WP 2159-2023

¶13

owner had not deposited the full premium for the vehicle. As such, the amendment sought to be introduced is already reflected in the written statement. The Trial Court also rejected the application on the grounds that the issues raised by respondent No.3, i.e. the insurance company, by way of the proposed amendment, can be considered at the time of final arguments. Since the written statement already contains the relevant plea, no further amendment is required, and the insurance company has raised its defense accordingly.

¶14

In view of the same, nothing survives in the petition, and the petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )

¶16

vj gawade/-.

¶17

Page 2 of 2

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Branch Manager through Its Authorized Signatory v. Appasaheb Babulal Bodakhe and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Branch Manager through Its Authorized Signatory v. Appasaheb Babulal Bodakhe and Others

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

Shaileja Keshav Khairnar and Ant. Vs Keshav Pralhad Khairnar

Yashodabai Zabu Dhabadge Vs Sanjay Shankar Dhabadge and Another

Munirabi Abdul Wahid Died and Others Vs Bismilabi Mohd Yusuf and Others

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Parbhani through Authorized Signatory Vs Kirti Alias Vijaya Vijaykumar Giram and Others

The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canel Project Div 2 Vs Narayan Sudam Jatal Died Lrs Vaishali Narayan Jatal and Antoher

Montessari Balak Mandir Shikshan Sanstha through Its Member Praful Lalchand Malani Vs Aurangabad Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner