Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Mahendra Singh and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Jun 2025FA/2015/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim application for withdrawal of compensation in motor accident first appeal; Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Co. Ltd.; deceased sole earning member of Applicants' family; no source of income; insurer objection as to death of owner of insured vehicle prior to accident and non-intimation, and compensation on higher side, deferred to final hearing; 50% withdrawal with accrued interest on furnishing undertaking; Shivkumar Dige, J.; 17 June 2025.

What did the court decide?

Applicants/Appellants permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount along with accrued interest thereon, on furnishing an undertaking. ¶¶26

Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Meena Mahendra Singh and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

905-FA-2015-2024-(corrected).doc

¶2

Gayatri Shimpi

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.8899 OF 2025

¶5

¶6

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2015 OF 2024

¶7

Meena Mahendra Singh And Anr. ….Applicants/Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors. ….Respondents

¶10

Mr. Aditya Ghadge i/b S. S. Diwan, Advocate for the Applicants/Appellants. Smt. Rina Kundu, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

¶11

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶12

DATE : 17^th JUNE, 2025.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the Applicants/Appellants and

¶15

learned counsel for the Respondents.

¶16

By this Application, the Applicant is seeking withdrawal of the amount.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Applicants submit that, the deceased was sole earning member of Applicant’s family. The Applicants need the amount for their daily expenses. Applicant’s have

¶18

1/2

¶19

905-FA-2015-2024-(corrected).doc

¶20

Gayatri Shimpi

¶21

no source of income. Hence, requested to allow the Application.

¶22

The learned counsel for the Respondent – Insurance Company strongly objected to allow the Application on the ground that the owner of the insured vehicle had died prior to the accident and the same was not communicated to the insurance company and compensation is awarded under other heads on higher side. Hence, requested to reject the Application.

¶23

I have heard both the learned counsel.

¶24

The deceased was sole earning member of the family, the Applicants needs the amount for their daily expenses. They have no source of income. The issue raised by the learned counsel for Respondent-Insurance Company can be considered at the time of the final hearing of the Appeal. Hence, I pass following order.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(i) The Application is allowed. (ii) The Applicants are permitted to withdraw 50 % amount along with accrued interest thereon on furnishing undertaking.

¶27

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶28

2/2

¶29

Digitally signed GAYATRI by GAYATRIRAJENDRA RAJENDRASHIMPI SHIMPIDate:2025.07.08 13:08:02 +0530

Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Mahendra Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Mahendra Singh and Anr.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rohan a. Agarwal vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kiran S/O. Premji Patel vs the Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Ors.

Asif Mohammad Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rohit Sudam Gange vs the State of Maharashtra

Sherali Hafiz Khan vs State of Maharashtra

Vishal Jaisingh Padavale vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.