Gujarat High Court
Shantaben Gordhanbhai Pithaya vs Icici Lombard General Insurance ... on 15 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9581/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9581 of 2025
==========================================================
SHANTABEN GORDHANBHAI PITHAYA
Versus
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 15/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hiren Modi for the petitioner. learned Advocate Ms. Kirti Pathak has entered her appearance on advance copy on behalf of respondent/insurance company.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.), Dahod at Limkheda in MACP Misc. Application No.197 of 2024. By the said impugned order, the tribunal has been pleased to reject the application preferred by the original claimant. The further directions are also sought for against the tribunal to release the entire amount to the petitioner by way of Account Payee Check.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has forcefully submitted that Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9581/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined the Tribunal committed gross error in ignoring the fact that the claimant had successfully proved her case and has been held entitled to amount of compensation. The accident had taken place way back in the year 2017. The claim petition preferred in the year 2017 was ultimately decided by the judgment and award dated 01.05.2019 holding the petitioner entitled to compensation of Rs.1,18,067/-.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment and award, the insurance company had approached in appeal which was registered as First Appeal No.539 of 2020. However, the same was not entertained at the threshold noticing the smallness of the amount involved. The heavy reliance was placed on order dated 21.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Application (for withdrawal/disbursement of amount) No.1 of 2021 (filed in the aforesaid first appeal) preferred at the instance of present petitioner/original claimant, whereby, the learned Single Judge has been pleased to direct disbursement of 30% of the amount deposited and 70% was directed to be deposited in fixed deposit of cumulative nature in nationalized bank. While referring to the aforesaid directions of this Court, learned advocate has Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9581/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined submitted that the fixed deposits was though directed to be created initially for a period of one year, the same was made renewable subject to further orders. The claimants were also permitted to earn periodical interest which may accrue on the invested amount. He has therefore submitted that the Tribunal committed gross error in passing the impugned order without considering the aforesaid directions, more particularly, ignoring the fact that the main appeal has been dismissed. In absence of any litigation, the claimant was at least entitled to realize the fruits of the awarded amount and therefore the Tribunal was expected to pass the order permitting to release entire award amount.
5. Learned Advocate Ms. Kirti Pathak appearing for the respondent/insurance company has urged this Court to pass appropriate order in light of the facts of this case.
6. I have heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and have also perused the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal while not entertaining the application seeking release of entire award amount. Admittedly, the proceedings initiated by the present petitioner in the original claim petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Act has attained finality in view of the Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9581/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined dismissal of the appeal of the insurance company. However, considering the fact that this Court, while disposing the Civil Application for disbursement of the amount had directed the investment of the 70% of the fixed deposit amount initially for a period of one year which was made renewable subject to further orders, the Tribunal has though noted that the award amount deposited in the fixed deposits in the nationalized bank, however it is deposited for the period of five years in the FDR in the name of the claimant. It appears that in view of dismissal of appeal, the Tribunal has drawn conclusion that the direction of Tribunal of original claim petition stands confirmed. Thus, the learned Judge has held that in view of the dismissal of the first appeal, the original order of tribunal being restored to its file, the accrued interest in FDR is not permitted to be released.
7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned Advocate for the petitioner. Though this Court at the stage of hearing of application for stay has directed 70% of deposited award to be invested in FDR for one year, subject to renewal, it has been in FDR for five years.
8. Considering the fact that the FDR had been deposited on Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9581/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 16.08.2021, and the period of five years is likely to set over in August 2026, withdrawal of the amount at this stage would amount to premature release of the FDR which may result in loss of interest accrued. Even perusal of the averments made in the petition, no substantive ground has been raised by the petitioner to seek premature withdrawal of the amount at this stage. Hence, considering the aforesaid reasons assigned by the Tribunal, the same being in accordance with the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Muljibhai vs. United India Insurance Co. 1982 (1) GLR 756, no error or any irregularity can be found with the impugned order passed by the tribunal.
9. Hence, this Court is not inclined to exercise the extraordinary supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as no error can be found in the approach of the Tribunal in refusing to entertain the application of disbursement at this stage. Hence, the present petition being devoid of any merit is not entertained and is hereby rejected.
10. At this stage, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner urged this Court to at least issue appropriate directions to the Tribunal to Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9581/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined release the FDR on completion of five years. Needless to clarify that as and when the FDRs gets matured, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to release the entire award amount lying in the Fixed Deposit in favour of the claimant.
11. With these observations, the present petition stands disposed off.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) ACS Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:00 IST 2025