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

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 ”).

¶16

Page 1 of 5 SEPTEMBER 4, 2025

¶17

Aswale

¶18

25.ia.9374.25.doc

¶19

The Applicants are the heirs of one Chandrashekhar Gangurde 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 Chandrashekhar Gangurde (the Applicants herein) preferred a Claim Petition before the MACT, Nashik by filing Motor Accident Claim Petition No.771 of 2015. That Claim Petition was partly allowed and the Appellant-Insurance Company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,71,85,902/- 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 7^th December 2023, the above First Appeal is filed. To obtain a stay of the judgment and Award of the MACT dated 7^th December 2023, the AppellantInsurance 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.

¶20

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

¶21

Page 2 of 5 SEPTEMBER 4, 2025

¶22

Aswale

¶23

25.ia.9374.25.doc

¶24

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. Suraj Patil ought to be allowed to withdraw any amount whatsoever.

¶25

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.

¶26

Page 3 of 5 SEPTEMBER 4, 2025

¶27

Aswale

¶28

25.ia.9374.25.doc

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

The Interim Application is accordingly disposed of. No order as

¶32

to costs.

¶33

Page 4 of 5 SEPTEMBER 4, 2025

¶34

Aswale

¶35

25.ia.9374.25.doc

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

Page 5 of 5 SEPTEMBER 4, 2025

¶39

Aswale

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

Reshma Bhavesh Shah vs Board of Directors of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Represented by Its Chairman

Raghunath Maruti Kadam and Ors. vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Ors.

State Bank of Patiala and Anr. vs Union of India and Ors.

Vijaya Pratap Shelake and Ors. vs the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr.General Manager

Shraddha Suraj Patil and Ors. vs General Manager,the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.