Allowed¶29

Kavita Kundan Jadhav and Ors. v. Divisional Manager, Reliance G.I.C Ltd.

Bombay HC4 Jul 2025IA/9356/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of deposited MACT award amount pending first appeal; release of 20% of decretal deposit on refund undertaking; motor accident death claim; heirs of deceased passenger; insurer alleged negligence of XUV driver and FIR; MACT Nashik; First Appeal (ST) No.32341 of 2024; Rs.99,64,465/- with 7.5% p.a. interest; balance of equities; fruits of decree; stay deposit; Bombay High Court; September 4, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Applicants permitted to withdraw 20% of the amount deposited (with accrued interest) before the MACT, Nashik, upon furnishing an undertaking to refund the withdrawn amount with interest (at a rate to be decided at the final hearing) if the First Appeal succeeds; Interim Application disposed of with no order as to costs. ¶29

Kavita Kundan Jadhav and Ors. vs Divisional Manager, Reliance G.I.C Ltd. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicants (original Claimants/heirs of the deceased) ought to be permitted to withdraw part of the awarded amount deposited by the Respondents before the MACT, Nashik, while the First Appeal against the award is pending.

¶14

Court's answer

While the challenge to the MACT award is pending, the Applicants, having succeeded before the MACT, ought not to wait for years on end to at least partly enjoy the fruits of the decree passed in their favour.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Notwithstanding the Insurance Company's stand and serious opposition to any withdrawal, permitting withdrawal of 20% of the deposited amount (with accrued interest) balances equities on both sides and is a just and fair order.

¶28

Key takeaways

The withdrawal is conditioned on the Applicants furnishing an undertaking to the MACT that in the event the Appeal succeeds they shall bring back the amount withdrawn together with interest at such rate as the Court may decide at the final hearing of the Appeal.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim Application No.9356 of 2025 in First Appeal (ST) No.32341 of 2024 (B. P. Colabawalla & Amit S. Jamsandekar, JJ., High Court of Judicature at Bombay, September 4, 2025): The Applicants, heirs of Dr. Kundan Jadhav who lost his life in a collision between a Mahindra-XUV (Regn. MH-15-EP-0871) and a Container Truck (Regn. MH-46-AF-1104) insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company, were awarded Rs.99,64,465/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. by the MACT, Nashik in Claim Petition No.954 of 2015 (Judgment and Award dated 29th December 2023). The insurer deposited the entire decretal amount before the Tribunal to obtain stay of the award and opposed any withdrawal, contending that the driver of the XUV (Dr. Pratap Shelke) was negligent, that an FIR was lodged against him, and that a surviving co-passenger admitted his negligence. Holding that pending the appeal, claimants successful before the MACT ought not to wait years on end to at least partly enjoy the fruits of the decree, the Court permitted withdrawal of 20% of the deposited amount with accrued interest, on the Applicants furnishing an undertaking to the MACT to bring back the withdrawn amount with interest at a rate to be decided at the final hearing if the appeal succeeds. Interim Application disposed of; no order as to costs.

¶1

24.ia.9356.25.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9356 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.32341 OF 2024

¶3

Kavita Kundan Jadhav & Anr .. Applicants (Orig.Claimants)

¶4

Versus

¶5

Divisional Officer The New India Assu. Co Ltd & Anr .. Respondents

¶6

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Divisional Officer, The New India Assu.Co Ltd ..Appellant

¶7

Versus KavitaKundan Jadhav & Ors ..Respondents

¶8

Mr. Pritesh Bohade , Advocates for the Applicants.

¶9

Mr. Devendranath Joshi , Advocates for the Orig. Appellants.

¶10

Digitally signed ANJALI by ANJALITUSHAR TUSHAR ASWALE ASWALE Date: 2025.09.1217:06:13 +0530

¶11

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &

¶12

AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 2025

¶13

P. C.

¶14

The above Interim Application is filed to allow the Applicants to withdraw some amount out of the awarded amount deposited by the Respondents before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nashik ( “MACT ”).

¶15

Page 1 of 5 SEPTEMBER 4, 2025

¶16

Aswale

¶17

24.ia.9356.25.doc

¶18

The Applicants are the heirs of one Dr. Kundan Jadhav who lost his life in a car accident. He was a passenger in Mahindra-XUV bearing Registration No.MH-15-EP-0871 which collided with a Container Truck bearing Registration No. MH-46-AF-1104. The Container Truck was insured with the Appellant Insurance Company. The heirs of Dr. Kundan Jadhav (the Applicants herein) preferred a Claim Petition before the MACT, Nashik by filing Motor Accident Claim Petition No.954 of 2015. That Claim Petition was partly allowed and the Appellant-Insurance Company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.99,64,465/- together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the Claim Petition till realization of the amount, to the Claimants. Aggrieved by the order passed by the MACT dated 29^th December 2023, the above First Appeal is filed. To obtain a stay of the judgment and Award of the MACT dated 29^th December 2023, the Appellant-Insurance Company deposited the entire decretal amount together with interest before the MACT, Nashik. It is this amount that the Applicants herein seek to withdraw by the present Interim Application.

¶19

The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the AppellantInsurance Company vehemently opposed the grant of any withdrawal. He submitted that in the facts of the present case, it is the Driver of the Mahindra-XUV, Dr. Pratap Shelke, who was responsible for the accident. He

¶20

Page 2 of 5 SEPTEMBER 4, 2025

¶21

Aswale

¶22

24.ia.9356.25.doc

¶23

submitted that in fact an FIR has also been lodged by the Police against the said deceased Dr. Pratap Shelke for rash and negligent driving. He further submitted that in fact in the statement of the surviving Dr. Umesh Bhosale, he admitted that it was Dr. Pratap Shelke who was negligent, and which caused accident. Once this is the case, this is not a fit case where the heirs of deceased Dr. Kundan Jadhav ought to be allowed to withdraw any amount whatsoever.

¶24

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have also perused the papers and proceedings in the above Interim Application. We have also perused the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the MACT. It is true that it was the case of the Insurance Company that they are not liable to pay any amount because the Driver of the Mahindra-XUV was negligent and responsible for causing the accident. However, that story has not found favour with the MACT in the impugned order. We are mindful of the fact that the said order is under challenge before us. However, we are of the view that while the said challenge is pending, the Applicants herein, and who were successful before the MACT ought not to wait for years on end to at least partly enjoy the fruits of the decree passed in their favour.

¶25

Page 3 of 5 SEPTEMBER 4, 2025

¶26

Aswale

¶27

24.ia.9356.25.doc

¶28

Considering the stand taken by the Insurance Company and the serious opposition to the withdrawal, we are of the view that the justice would be served, if we permit the Applicants to withdraw the 20% of the amount deposited (with accrued interest), on the Applicants furnishing an undertaking to the MACT that in the event the above Appeal succeeds, they shall bring back the amount withdrawn together with interest at such rate as this Court may decide at the final hearing of the Appeal. We are of the view that this will not only balance equities on both sides but would be a just and fair order.

¶29

We, accordingly, allow the Applicants to withdraw the 20% of the amount deposited (with accrued interest) on the Applicants furnishing an undertaking to the MACT that in the event the above Appeal succeeds, they shall bring back the amount withdrawn together with interest at such rate as this Court may decide at the final hearing of the Appeal.

¶30

The Interim Application is accordingly disposed of. No order as

¶31

to costs.

¶32

Page 4 of 5 SEPTEMBER 4, 2025

¶33

Aswale

¶34

24.ia.9356.25.doc

¶35

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶36

[AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶37

Page 5 of 5 SEPTEMBER 4, 2025

¶38

Aswale

Kavita Kundan Jadhav and Ors. v. Divisional Manager, Reliance G.I.C Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavita Kundan Jadhav and Ors. v. Divisional Manager, Reliance G.I.C Ltd.

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

Santosh Dattaram Indulkar vs Departmental Engineer Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport and 5 Ors.

Dosti Corporation Vihar vs Commissioner Service Tax - 1, Mumbai

The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise Belapur Commissionerate vs Tenormac Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Sapna Sanjay @ Sanjay Kumar Tiwari and Ors. vs Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Thr. Divisional Manager and Ors.

Sonali Chandrashekhar Gangurde and Ors. vs Suraj Sahebrao Patil(Fatal) Since Deceased Thr. Lrs. 1.1 Shraddha Suraj Patil and Ors.

M/S. Athani Farmers Sugar Factory Ltd. through Its Chairman and M. D. vs Union of India Thr.General Manager