Bombay High Court
Laxmikanta Venkatesh Kamghante ... vs Cholamandalam Ms General ... on 4 July, 2022
Bench: S. G. Dige
1
9702.22CA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
23 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9702 OF 2022
IN FIRST APPEAL NO.363 OF 2022
...
LAXIMIKANTA VENKATESH KAMGHANTE & OTHERS
VERSUS
CHOLAMANDALAM M.S.GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD. & OTHERS
...
Advocate for the applicants : Mr.B.N.Gadegaonkar
Advocate for respondent no.1 : Mr.S.G.Chapalgaonkar
...
CORAM : S.G.DIGE, J.
DATE : 04.07.2022
P.C. :
1] Heard the learned counsel for the applicants
and the learned counsel for respondent no.1.
2] The learned counsel for the applicants submits
that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded
has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the applicants
and directed the respondents jointly and severally to pay
compensation of Rs.49,45,880/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a.
from the date of petition till it's realization of the entire
amount. The Insurance Company i.e. respondent no.1 has
challenged the order passed by the learned Tribunal and
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2022 01:08:28 :::
2
9702.22CA
has deposited the amount before this Court. The applicants
are the wife, daughter and sons of the deceased Venkatesh,
who died in accident. The deceased was the bread earner
for the entire family. At present, the applicants have no
source of income, hence, they are facing hard days. Despite
grant of compensation by the learned Tribunal way back in
the month of December, 2021, till the date applicants have
not received any amount, hence, requested to allow the
application.
3] The learned counsel for respondent no.1
submits that respondent no.1 has the impugned order of the
learned Tribunal. There are various grounds raised in the
appeal. For instance, the accident was occurred on
04.01.2018 whereas the First Information Report was
lodged on 13.01.2018. There is 9 days delay in lodging the
FIR. The alleged accident was witnessed by the brother of
claimant no.1 only and not by other persons. It creates
doubt about happening of accident. If the amount is
withdrawn by the applicants and appellant succeeds in the
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2022 01:08:28 :::
3
9702.22CA
appeal, it would be difficult for respondent no.1 to recover
the amount, hence, requested to dismiss the application.
4] Heard both the learned counsel. The applicants
are the wife, daughter and sons of the deceased Venkatesh,
who was Karta of the family. There is no other karta
member in the family of the applicants. The applicants are
facing hardships due to paucity of money. Respondent no.1
has impugned the judgment and award of the learned
Tribunal on various grounds. The issue raised by respondent
no.1 in appeal can be decided at the time of deciding the
appeal. The entire compensation amount is deposited by
respondent no.1 before this Court. As the applicants are in
need of money and they are the heirs and legal
representatives of the deceased, they are facing financial
crisis, hence, in my view, they are entitled to get 50%
amount out of the deposited amount and pass the following
order:
ORDER
i] The application is allowed. The applicants are
9702.22CA
permitted to withdraw 25% amount out of total deposited
amount by submitting usual undertaking before the learned
Registrar [Judicial] of this Court and the applicants are also
permitted to withdraw 25% amount out of total deposited
amount after furnishing solvent security to the satisfaction
of the learned Registrar [Judicial] of this Court.
ii] Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.
iii] By consent of both the learned counsel, the
matter be heard at the admission stage on 12th September,
2022.
[S.G.DIGE]
JUDGE
DDC
