Disposed

Smt Mundrika Devi v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors.

Jharkhand HC24 Apr 2023MA/327/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of motor accident claim appeal where parties reached a compromise. Insurance company settled for Rs. 4,78,000/- with Rs. 1,78,000/- payable to be refunded to appellant as conditioned in settlement.

What did the court decide?

Original statutory amount deposited by appellant in registry to be refunded to the appellant subject to compromise terms.

Smt Mundrika Devi Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

M .A. No. 252 of 2016

¶3

Sohan Saw @ Sohan Nayak

¶4

..... … Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt. Mundrika Devi

¶7

Sanjit Saw

¶8

Md. Mansoor Alam

¶9

Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, 504, Mahavir Tower, Ranchi. ..... … Respondents

¶10

with

¶11

M .A. No. 327 of 2016

¶12

Smt. Mundrika Devi ..... … Appellant

¶13

Versus

¶14

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, 504, Mahavir Tower, Ranchi

¶15

Sohan Saw @ Sohan Nayak

¶16

Sanjit Saw

¶17

Md. Mansoor Alam

¶18

..... … Respondents

¶19

¶20

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶21

-----For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate.[in M.A. No. 252/16] : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate. [in M.A. No. 327/16] For the Ins. Cop. : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate.

¶22

¶23

05/ 24.04.2023 M.A. No. 252 of 2016 has been filed by the claimants for

¶24

enhancements of the awarded amount.

¶25

M.A. No. 327 of 2016 has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle and it has been submitted that now the compromise has taken place between the parties and in view of the said compromise, a sum of Rs. 1,78,000/- is required to be paid by 30^th of September, 2024 to the insurance company by the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in M.A. No. 252 of 2016 submits that the said M.A. is required to be heard separately.

¶27

In view of such submission, let the M.A. No. 252 of 2016 be detached and to be listed separately.

¶28

M.A. No. 327 of 2016

¶29

This appeal has been filed, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment/award dated 10.02.2016, passed by the learned District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 1 Giridih, in M.V. Suit No. 25 of 2012, whereby the learned court has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,48,800/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order. It was further ordered that the awarded amount and interest shall be paid by the Insurance Company and the same shall be recovered by the insurance company from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶30

-2-

¶31

Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company submits that the insurance company has already complied the award. Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that thereafter the owner of the offending vehicle has approached for compromise and thereafter a compromise in writing has been arrived at between the owner and insurance company, wherein final settlement has been done on the amount of Rs. 4,78,000/-, out of which, Rs. 3,00,000/- has already been paid by the owner of the offending vehicle to the Insurance Company and balance of Rs. 1,78,000/- has to be paid by September, 2024. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company also accepted the submission of Mr. Roy. 7. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, M.A. No. 327 of 2016 is disposed of accepting the terms and conditions arrived at between the parties. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant in the registry shall be refunded back to the appellant.

¶32

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶33

Amitesh/-

Smt Mundrika Devi v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mundrika Devi v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashi Kant Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Asha Rani Rana And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dhruba Kumar Ghosh Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Imamuddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

P.K.Sinha And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Nagendra Prasad Saini and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.