Allowed¶14

Smt. Parwatabai Wd/O Arvind Kanake and Others v. the New India Assurance Com. Ltd, Thr Its Chief Regional Manager, Nagpur

Bombay HC14 Jul 2025CAF/2024/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of deposited motor accident compensation; apportionment among claimants (widow 50%, other heirs 10% each); power of attorney authorising applicant No. 1 to withdraw and distribute; Pursis marked X; no objection by insurer's counsel; first appeal disposed 29.01.2025; New India Assurance Co. Ltd as appellant-insurer; Nagpur Bench; decided 14-07-2025; CAF 2024/2025 in FA 915/2009(D).

What did the court decide?

Application allowed: applicants permitted to withdraw the compensation amount deposited by the appellant Insurance Company; applicant No. 1 (Parwatabai) allotted 50% of the compensation and the remaining applicants 10% each, to be distributed as per the judgment and Award. ¶14

Smt. Parwatabai Wd/O Arvind Kanake and Others Vs the New India Assurance Com. Ltd, Thr Its Chief Regional Manager, Nagpur — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants should be permitted to withdraw the compensation amount deposited by the appellant Insurance Company after disposal of the first appeal, with applicant No. 1 authorised under a power of attorney from applicants Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 to withdraw and distribute it as per the judgment and Award. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

In view of the power of attorney executed by applicants Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 in favour of applicant No. 1, the application is allowed: applicant No. 1 may withdraw the amount of compensation from the Court and distribute the same between them as per the judgment and Award.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

No apportionment of the compensation amount was made in the earlier order; however, considering that applicant No. 1 Parvatabai is the widow, applicant Nos. 2 to 5 are her major daughters and sons, and applicant No. 7 is her mother-in-law, it was appropriate to apportion the amount amongst the claimants.

¶15

Key takeaways

Applicant No. 1, Parvatabai, is entitled to 50% of the compensation amount and each of the remaining applicants is entitled to 10%; the amount is to be distributed between them accordingly.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench (Abhay J. Mantri, J.), CAF No. 2024 of 2025 in First Appeal No. 915 of 2009(D), decided 14-07-2025. After the first appeal was disposed of by order dated 29.01.2025, the claimant-applicants sought leave to withdraw the compensation amount deposited by the appellant Insurance Company, to which the insurer's counsel raised no objection. The Power of Attorney executed by applicants Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 in favour of applicant No. 1 (with Pursis marked 'X') was taken on record. Application allowed: applicant No. 1, Parvatabai (widow), held entitled to 50% of the compensation amount and each of the remaining applicants (her major daughters and sons, and her mother-in-law) to 10% each, the Court noting that no apportionment had been made in the earlier order.

¶1

1 28caf2024.2025..odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAF) NO 2024 OF 2025 IN

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 915 OF 2009(D)

¶5

(Smt. Parwatabai wd/o Arvind Kanake and ors Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd and ors)

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

¶10

Ms. Mategaonkar, Advocate for appellant. Mr. S.P. Chintakuntalwar, Advocate for applicants.

¶11

CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATED : 14-07-2025.

¶12

Heard.

¶13

The applicants have moved this application to permit them to withdraw the compensation amount deposited by the appellant Insurance Company as the first appeal was disposed of vide order dated 29.01.2025, for which learned counsel for the appellant has no objection. The applicants have also produced a copy of the Power of Attorney executed by the applicants Nos. 2 to 5, and 7 in favour of applicant No. 1 on record, along with Pursis. The Pursis is taken on record and marked ‘ X’ for identification.

¶14

In view of the power of attorney, the applicants Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 have authorised applicant No.1 to withdraw the amount of compensation from the Court and distribute the same between them as per the judgment and Award. Application is allowed.

¶15

Perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal as well as this Court. It seems that no apportionment of the compensation amount was made in the order. However, considering the fact that applicant No.1 Parvatabai is the widow and applicant Nos. 2 to 5 are her major daughters and sons, and applicant No. 7 is

¶16

2 28caf2024.2025..odt

¶17

her mother-in-law, I think that it would be appropriate to apportion the said amount amongst the claimants as under. Applicant No. 1, Parvatabai, is entitled to 50% of the compensation amount, and the rest of the applicants are entitled to 10% of the compensation amount each. Accordingly, the same should be distributed between them.

¶18

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

¶19

Belkhede

Smt. Parwatabai Wd/O Arvind Kanake and Others v. the New India Assurance Com. Ltd, Thr Its Chief Regional Manager, Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Parwatabai Wd/O Arvind Kanake and Others v. the New India Assurance Com. Ltd, Thr Its Chief Regional Manager, Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Irshad Mohd. S/O Dilshad Mohd. Vs Union of India through General Manager, Central Railway, C.S.T. Mumbai

Executive Engineer, Jigaon Upsa Sinchan Department, Jigaon Project, Khamgaon, Buldhana Vs Rama Bhonaji Raipure and Others

Abhishek S/O Dilip Wasnik Vs Union of India, General Manager Central Railway, Mumbai

Vishnu Bhagwan Wadekar Vs Ansar Khan Gaffar Khan (Dead) and Others

Manisha Avinash Harane vs Avinash Mohan Harane

Regional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr. Branch Manager, Nagpur Vs Jaipal S/O Tukaram Kumbhare and Others