Shivkanta W/O Balasaheb Kendre ... vs Shriram General Insurance Co. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8162 Bom

                                        (1)                             42-ca-11708-2022




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11708 OF 2022
                           IN FA/116/2022

 SHIVKANTA W/O BALASAHEB KENDRE AND ORS
                                     ..APPLICANTS

                  VERSUS

 SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THR ITS BRANCH
 MANAGER, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN AND ANR ..RESPONDENTS

                        ...
 Mr. K. N. Shermale h/f Mr. Sayyed Umair Pasha A
 Quader, Advocate for the Applicants.
 Mr. Swapnil S. Rathi, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
                                              ...

                                 CORAM : S. G. DIGE, J.

                                 DATED : 22nd AUGUST, 2022.

 PER COURT:-

 1.               Heard learned counsel for the applicants
 and learned counsel for respondent no.1.


 2.               The      learned            counsel   for      the      applicants
 submits that, respondent no.1 has challenged the
 judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and has
 deposited entire award amount.                           The applicants are
 widow and sons of the deceased.                                    The applicant
 nos.2 and 3 are taking education.                            They require the
 amount for education purpose as well as for house
 expenses.                     Hence,         requested        to       allow          the
 application.




::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2022                            ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2022 06:46:44 :::
                                        (2)                               42-ca-11708-2022



 3.               The learned counsel for respondent no.1
 submits that, initially the offence was registered
 against the unknown vehicle and after 12 days of
 the accident it is shown that the alleged vehicle
 was involved in the accident.                           The respondent no.1
 has      taken         specific         plea       that,      there         is        false
 involvement              of     the     vehicle         and     income           of     the
 deceased            is        shown    on      higher         side.            If       the
 applicants are permitted to withdraw the amount and
 respondent no.1 succeeded in appeal, it would be
 difficult            for       respondent           no.1      to      recover           the
 amount.                  Hence,        requested           to        dismiss           the
 application.

 4.               I have heard both the learned counsel.

 5.               The applicant no.1 is the widow of the
 deceased.             The applicant nos.2 and 3 are sons of
 the       deceased            who     are     taking        education.                 The
 deceased was Karta of the family.                                     There is no
 source of income to the family of the applicants
 after         demise           of     deceased.               Considering              the
 objections             raised         by     the     learned          counsel           for
 respondent no.1, if undertaking and solvent surety
 is taken for withdrawal of the amount would meet
 ends       of     justice.            Hence,        I   pass       the      following
 order:
                                             ORDER

(a)        Application is allowed.

(b)        The applicants are permitted to withdraw 25%
           amount         alongwith          accrued      interest           thereon



                                       (3)                              42-ca-11708-2022



           out       of        the    deposited          amount           by       the
           respondents on             furnishing undertaking.


(c)        The applicants are permitted to withdraw 25%
           amount         alongwith          accrued    interest           thereon
           out       of        the    deposited          amount           by       the
           respondents               on             furnishing             solvent
           surety/security.


 6.               The      learned          counsel    for      the      applicants
 further          submits        that,        the     amount        deposited             by

respondent no.1 is not as per proper calculations, hence liberty be given to the applicants to make proper calculations and give it to the learned counsel for respondent no.1. Liberty granted.

(S. G. DIGE) JUDGE

Devendra/August-2022