Mangal Laxman Kale And Another vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2343 Bom

                                       1   [953 - C.A. 1216.2021 in F.A. 1127.2020]


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

           953 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1216 OF 2021
                     IN
                FA/1127/2020

                    MANGAL LAXMAN KALE AND ANOTHER
                         VERSUS
                    BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                    THR ITS BRANCH MANAGER, AURANGABAD AND
                    ANOTHER
                              ......
                    Mr. S.R.Zambare h/f Mr. N.B.Narwade,
                    Advocate for Applicants.
                    Mr. S.S.Dargad h/f Mr. S.G.Chapalgaonkar,
                    Advocate for R - 1.
                                   ......
                                   CORAM : V.L.ACHLIYA, J.

DATE : 04/02/2021 ......

ORAL ORDER :

1. The applicants/claimants have moved this application seeking withdrawal of amount.

2. Heard learned counsel for applicants and counsel representing respondent No. 1.

3. In brief, it is the contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 1/appellant that appellant has good case to succeed in Appeal. It is submitted that out of two claim petitions filed arising out of same accident, the claim petition filed by legal representatives of deceased Santosh Gaikwad, who died in same accident, was dismissed by Tribunal by holding that accident was solely occurred due to rash

2 [953 - C.A. 1216.2021 in F.A. 1127.2020]

and negligent driving on the part of deceased Santosh Gaikwad who was driving the motorcycle. However, the another petition was filed by respondents/claimants. It is submitted that in the present case though the petition has been filed u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and to prove the rash and negligent driving is necessary to seek claim u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal has taken contrary view and awarded compensation by holding that it is a case of composite negligence. It is submitted that in absence of joint tort feasors being made party to the proceeding, the Tribunal has erred in applying the principle of law in respect of composite negligence.

4. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced, it is necessary to peruse the Judgment and order passed in M.A.C.P. No. 519/2013 as well as record and proceedings of the case. Learned counsel for appellant is directed to produce copy of Judgment in M.A.C.P. No. 519/2013. Call record and proceedings and put up with record and proceedings.

5. S.O. 10/03/2021.

[V.L.ACHLIYA] JUDGE KNP