Bombay High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Shri Ramrao S/O Damodar Wakode, ... on 31 May, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
fa.1494.08.jud.doc 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.1494 OF 2008
Appellant : The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Akola,
Through the Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office No.2,
8, Hindustan Colony, Wardha Road, Nagpur.
-- Versus --
Respondents : 1] Shri Ramrao s/o Damodar Wakode,
Aged 33 years, Occu : Nil (as pleaded in CP)
R/o Ambedkar Nagar, Behind New S.T. Bus Stand,
Akola.
2] Mr. Mohd. Nazakatulla Mohd. Valayatulla,
Aged 40 years, Occu : Driver,
Ward No.2, Shanicharpura, Patur,
Tahsil : Patur, District Akola.
3] Mr. Shafique Ahmed Khan Rafique Ahmed Khan,
Age : Adult, Occu : Owner (MH 28 B 5378)
R/o Near Kali Masjid, Humany Road,
Baidpura, Akola.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri Lalit Limaye, Advocate for the Appellant.
None for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE : 31
MAY, 2017.
st
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Heard Shri Lalit Limaye, learned Counsel for appellant-Insurance
Company. Nobody appears for respondent no.1-claimant and respondent
no.3 - owner of vehicle. Respondent no.2 was the driver and against him
appeal has been dismissed for failure to complete service.
02] Order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola (for
short 'the Tribunal') on 28th July, 2008 below Exh.6 i.e. on application under
Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been questioned in the present
matter by Insurance Company. Insurance Company i.e. present appellant,
driver and owner of the vehicle have been asked to jointly and severally pay
amount of Rs.25,000/- to the claimant on no fault basis. Said order is stayed
by this Court on 20th November, 2008 while admitting the appeal.
03] Thus, in last more than eight years, claimant before the Tribunal
i.e. respondent no.1 has not chosen to appear before this Court and oppose
the appeal. Shri Limaye, learned Counsel for appellant submits that he is not
aware whether Claim Petition No.126/2006 filed by respondent no.1 is still
pending or already disposed of. It is apparent that verdict in claim petition
filed in 2006 if disposed of, would have adjusted appropriately no fault
amount towards final liability.
04] In this situation, as interim orders are operative, I find that
interest of justice can be met with by continuing that interim order till final
adjudication of M.A.C.P. No.126/2006. If M.A.C.P. No.126/2006 is already
disposed of, it is apparent that the independent challenge to impugned order
may not survive. In that event, contingent upon finding delivered in final
judgment recorded by the Tribunal, the appeal has to question final judgment
before competent forum. Hence, with that liberty and keeping all rival
contentions in relation therefor open, the present appeal is partly allowed and
disposed of. No costs.
JUDGE
*sdw
