Allowed¶28

Archana Naresh Wagh and Ors. v. the New India Assurance Co.Ltd. through Its Branch Manager

Bombay HC8 Jul 2025IA/9351/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim withdrawal of amount pending appeal; 25% withdrawal with accrued interest on undertaking; claimants without other source of income; deceased sole earning member; insurer's objections (monthly income on higher side, sole negligence of deceased) deferred to final hearing; The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.; First Appeal No. 1093 of 2024; Interim Application No. 9351 of 2024; Bombay High Court; Shivkumar Dige, J.

What did the court decide?

Applicants permitted to withdraw 25% of the amount along with accrued interest thereon, on furnishing an undertaking; interim application disposed of. ¶28

Archana Naresh Wagh and Ors. vs the New India Assurance Co.Ltd. through Its Branch Manager — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

53-IA-9351-2024 WITHDRAW.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9351 OF 2024 IN

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1093 OF 2024

¶6

Archana Naresh Wagh and Ors. IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶7

…. Applicants

¶8

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Its Branch …. Appellant Manager.

¶9

Versus

¶10

Archana Naresh Wagh and Ors. …. Respondents

¶11

Digitally signed bySHANTANU SHANTANU SHANKARSA SHANKARSA DHUDUM DHUDUM Date: 2025.07.09 17:23:37 +0530

¶12

Ms. Priyanka Lanke a/w Mr. Aniket Nangare i/b R. S. Gangawane,Advocate for the Applicants.

¶13

Ms. Prachi Pawar i/b Res Juris, for the Appellant – Insurance Company.

¶14

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶15

DATE : 8^th JULY, 2025.

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

By this application, the Applicants are seeking withdrawal of the amount.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that the

¶19

deceased was the sole earning member of Applicants’ family. They

¶20

have not source of income. They need the amount for their daily

¶21

Shantanu S. Dhudum 1/2

¶22

53-IA-9351-2024 WITHDRAW.doc

¶23

expenses. Hence, requested to allow the application.

¶24

Learned counsel for the Appellant – Insurance Company strongly objected to allow the application on the ground that the Tribunal has considered monthly income of the deceased on higher side and accident occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased, hence, requested to reject the application.

¶25

I have heard both learned counsel.

¶26

The deceased was the sole earning member of the Applicants’ family. They have no source of income. They need the amount for their daily expenses. The issue raised by the Appellant – Insurance Company can be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal, and I pass following order :

¶27

ORDER

¶28