Smt. Karishma Wd/O Shankar Kakde ... vs Rajkumar S/O Sewakram Gurubaxani ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8677 Bom

21.FAST.6815.2021.                                                                                             1/2


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                               Civil Application (CAF) No.1276/2021
                                                  IN
                                 First Appeal Stamp No.6815/2021
   Smt. Karishma wd/o Shankar Kakde & Ors. Vs. Rajkumar s/o Sewakram Gurubaxani & Ors.
*******************************************************************************************************************
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                               Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
*******************************************************************************************************************
                 Shri M.M. Akhtar Jamal, Advocate for the Applicants/Appellants.
                 Shri M.A. Kadu, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

                 CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J.

DATE : 1st JULY, 2021.

Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned Counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

Heard.

This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. There is a delay of 421 days.

Issue notice to the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 (as respondent No.3 is reported to be dead), returnable after eight weeks.

Appellants to produce death certificate of respondent No.3.

Civil Application (CAF) No.1277/2021

Heard.

The respondent No.3 is dead. He was shown alive when the judgment was pronounced on 20th December, 2019. The

21.FAST.6815.2021. 2/2

appellants claim to be his legal representatives.

It is orally submitted that the insurance company has deposited the amount before the Tribunal and the appellants have withdrawn their share under protest. They apprehend that respondent Nos.3 and 4 will also withdraw the amount. According to appellants, in fact, they are not entitled to withdraw the amount. In the appeal memo (para 10) (it is yet to be admitted) the appellants have challenged entitlement of compensation by respondent Nos.3 and 4. Hence the direction:

1. The Claims Tribunal, Nagpur is directed to hear the appellants if at all there is a request for withdrawal of the amount by respondent No.3-Tarachand Kakde and respondent No.4-Chandrakalabi.

2. The appellants are at liberty to press for stay of the order once respondent No. 4 is served.

Issue notice to the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, returnable after eight weeks.

JUDGE

vijay