Dismissed

Smt.Saroja W/O. Santosh Khade and Ors. v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2016WP/201298/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed writ petition seeking release of motor accident compensation amount deposited by insurance company. Court held petitioners should seek clarification from High Court bench hearing first appeal to avoid contradictory orders.

What did the court decide?

No order passed except dismissal of writ petition with direction to petitioners to approach High Court bench hearing first appeal.

Smt.Saroja W/O. Santosh Khade and Ors. Vs Bajaj… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY 2016

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.201298/2016 (GM-CPC)

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. Saroja W/o Santosh Khade Age: 37 years, Occ: Household work

¶10

Sritika D/o Santosh Khade Age: 17 years, Occ: Student

¶11

Ruchika D/o Santosh Kahde Age: 16 years, Occ: Student

¶12

Suman W/o Shivadas Khade Age: 56 years, Occ: Household work

¶13

Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are minors Represented by mother guardian Petitioner No.1 natural mother

¶14

All are R/o Talikoti

¶15

Tq. Muddebihal, Dist. Vijayapur

¶16

… Petitioners

¶17

(By Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, Advocate)

¶18

And:

¶19

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.

¶20

¶21

G.E. Plaza, Airport road Yerwad, Pune – 411 006 … Respondent

¶22

This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Muddebihal dated 07.11.2015 passed in E.P.No.71/2013 vide Annexure-E and consequently allow the application of the petitioners for release of amount deposited in said Execution Petition, etc.

¶23

This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioners have challenged the legality of the order dated 07.11.2015, passed by the Civil Judge, at Muddebihal, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioners for releasing the compensation award amount which was granted to them by the learned Judge.

¶26

Briefly the facts of the case are that, one

¶27

Santosh Khade met with an accident on 03.05.2009,

¶28

and expired in the said motor vehicle accident. Since

¶29

¶30

the petitioners have lost the bread earner of the family they filed a claim petition, namely MVC No.117/2009.

¶31

Subsequently, the learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.12,45,000/- in favour of the petitioners. However, as the Insurance company was aggrieved by the said award, it filed a Miscellaneous First Appeal before this court, namely MFA No.32057/2013. On 12.11.2013, this court passed an interim order wherein this court directed that 50% of the award amount should be deposited within a period of four weeks, from the date of the order, and the remaining 50% of the award amount was stayed. However, according to the petitioners, the condition imposed in the interim order was not complied with by the insurance company. Therefore, they initiated execution proceedings in the form of EP.No.71/2013. Subsequently, the respondent-Insurance company has deposited a sum of Rs.8,03,411/-. Since the petitioners required the amount so deposited for maintaining

¶32

¶33

themselves, and for educational expenses of the children, they filed an application before the learned court for releasing of the compensation amount. However, by order dated 07.11.2015, the learned Court has rejected their application. Hence, this petition before this court.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that despite the fact that the condition of the interim order was not fulfilled by the insurance company, inspite of the fact that there is no interim order, still the learned court has refused to release the amount deposited by the insurance company with the court. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

¶36

¶37

Admittedly, the insurance company has filed a

¶38

MFA before this court. Admittedly, the petitioners are arrayed as party respondents in the said MFA. Since the interim order has been passed by this court on 12.11.2013, even if the condition mentioned in the interim order is not fulfilled by the insurance company, the petitioners are free to move an application for clarification from the concerned Bench dealing with MFA.

¶39

A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned court has declined to release the compensation amount as a token of deference to the High Court as the MFA is sub-judice before this court presently. Thus, it would be in the interest of justice that a clarification is sought from the Bench which is seized of MFA. For a distinct possibility does exist that two benches of this court, namely the present Bench, and the Bench seized with MFA may pass contradictory

¶40

¶41

orders. In order to avoid such an embarrassing scenario, the petitioners should approach the concerned Bench and should bring to the notice of the concerned Bench that the interim order dated 12.11.2013 is creating a hurdle in their seeking release of the compensation amount from the learned court.

¶42

For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any merit in the present writ petition; it is, hereby, disposed of with the above observations.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

NB*

Smt.Saroja W/O. Santosh Khade and Ors. v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Saroja W/O. Santosh Khade and Ors. v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Cvhandrashekhar Died by Lr Vs Vaijinath Died by Lrs

Sri Vasavi Dall Industry Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Chavan Shivanand Kheeru S/O Chavan Kheeru Vs the Chairman Asst. Public Prosecutor and Anr.

Shri Ashok H and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Shankerlalji S/O Tulasiramji Gilda Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

G.Srinivas S/O Basanna Gubbal Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.