Bombay High Court
Baby Manohar Pawar And Ors vs M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance ... on 9 April, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 906-CA-3947-21-w.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3947 OF 2021
IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2147 OF 2020
BABY MANOHAR PAWAR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD.
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. S. G. Chapalgaonkar
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vinayak Narayan Upadhye
...
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 9th APRIL, 2021
PER COURT :-
This is an application moved by the claimants in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No. 248 of 2019, wherein, the learned
Tribunal vide Judgment and Order dated 19-11-2019 granted
compensation of Rs.1,10,00,000/-. The said Judgment and Award
is under challenge in the present appeal at the behest of
Insurance company.
2. I have heard learned counsels for the respective parties.
3. Mr. Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the claimants were depending upon the income of
deceased, who was working as teacher at the time of accident
and he has pointed out that the issue of maintainability of the
present appeal is also involved in the present matter as no leave
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2021 05:06:59 :::
2 906-CA-3947-21-w.odt
was sought under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
and therefore, this case is covered by the Judgment in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh Versus
Nicolletta Rohtagi and others 1. It is, therefore, prayed that
the applicants be permitted to withdraw the decreetal amount
deposited by the Insurance company in this Court.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Upadhye, learned counsel for the
Insurance company strongly opposes the application by fling
reply on record.
5. Mr. Upadhye, learned counsel for the Insurance company is
disputing the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants
that no leave was sought in this matter by the Insurance
company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He
submits that since the amount is in Crore, if the application is
allowed and the applicants are permitted to withdraw the amount
in that case it will be difcult for the insurance company to
recover the said amount in case the insurance company
succeeds in the present appeal.
6. After going through the impugned Judgment and Award and
after considering the rival contentions of the parties, at this
stage, I am of the opinion that the justice would be subserved, if
the applicants are permitted to withdraw 50% of the total amount
deposited by the Insurance company; the 25% amount out of the
1 2002 Supp(2) SCR 456
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2021 05:06:59 :::
3 906-CA-3947-21-w.odt
same on furnishing undertaking and remaining 25% amount on
furnishing surety to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of
this Court.
7. In the circumstances, I pass the following order :-
ORDER
1. The application is partly allowed.
2. The applicants-claimants are permitted to withdraw
25% of the total amount deposited in this Court on
furnishing undertaking that in case the Insurance
company succeeds in the present appeal, the
applicants would pay back / redeposit the said amount
as directed by this Court within stipulated period.
3. The remaining 25% of the total amount deposited in
this Court is permitted to be withdrawn by the
applicants-claimants on furnishing surety to the
satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this
Court.
4. Registry is directed that the remaining 50% amount
shall be invested in any nationalized bank initially for a
period of two years and the said period would be
extended in case the matter is not fnally decided
within such period.
( ANIL S. KILOR )
JUDGE
rrd
