Kokila Ganesh Wanare And Others vs Madan Parlhadrao Shinde And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 7245 Bom

                                                            WP No.10516/16
                                         1




                                                                         
                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                  APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                 
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 10516 OF 2016

     1.       Kokila Wd/o Ganesh Wanare,
              Age: 46 years, Occu: Household,
              R/o Thar, Tq Manwath,




                                                
              District Hingoli.

     2.       Pankaj Ganesh Wanare,
              Age: 25 years, Occu: Education,




                                       
              R/o As above.

     3.       Sanket Ganesh Wanare,
                             
              Age: 24 years, Occu: Education,
              R/o As above.
                            
     4.       Renuka D/o Ganesh Wanare
              Age: 21 years, Occu: Education,
              R/o As above.                       ....Petitioners
                                                  (Orig Claimants)
      

                      Versus
   



     1.       Madan S/o Parlhadrao Shinde,
              Age: Major, Occu: Business,
              R/o Pimpala, Tq. Pathari,
              District Parbhani.





              (Owner of Scorpio No MH 22, D 2339)

     2.       Branch Manager, United
              India Insurance Company Ltd,
              Dayawan Complex, Main Road,
              Parbhani, Tq & Dist Parbhani.       ...RespondentS.





                                                  (Orig Respondents)


     Mr. Pawankumar S, Agrawal, Advocate for Petitioners.
     Mr. S.R. Bodade, Advocate for Respondent No.2.



                                       CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.

DATED : 15th November, 2016.

WP No.10516/16

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent,

heard both the sides for final disposal.

2) Present proceeding is filed to challenge the orde

made in Claims Petition No. 628/2011 by the Claims Tribunal,

Parbhani. When the application was moved for releasing the

entire amount of compensation awarded in favour of petitioners,

the Tribunal allowed the claimants to withdraw the amount of Rs.

1,94,645/- from respective fixed deposits which appears to be

interest amount. The submissions made show that the Insurance

Company has not challenged the decision of the Tribunal and the

decision has become final.

3) The submissions was made that Renuka, petitioner

No. 4 needs the amount for her marriage and petitioner No. 2

and 3 need amount as they can do some profitable business to

earn their livelihood. However, the reason given in respect of

petitioner No. 1 is not found sufficient. She is widow of the

deceased. There is every possibility that out of love and

affection, she may give entire amount to sons in future and sons

may not provide protection to her. In view of this possibility, the

amount cannot be released in favour of Kokila, petitioner No. 1.

WP No.10516/16

However, she is entitled to receive quarterly interest on that

amount.

4) In the result, the petition is allowed. The amounts

kept in the names of petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are to be released in

their favour. But the amount of Kokila, petitioner No. 1 is not to

be released and she is entitled to receive quarterly interest on

this amount. The order already made in favour of Kokila in

respect of her entitlement to withdraw the amount of Rs.

1,94,645/- is kept intact and she is entitled to get that amount.

So, the order made of rejection against petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 by

the Tribunal is set aside.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ] ssc/