Dilip Sultanji Vartale And Ors vs Shriram General Insurance ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10073 Bom

                                        1                922- C. A. No. 5466-2021.odt




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                  922 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5466 OF 2021
                              IN FA/1770/2020

             DILIP SULTANJI VARTALE AND ORS
                         VERSUS
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THR ITS DIVISIONAL
                 MANAGER AND ANOTHER

                               ...
            Advocate for Applicants : Mr. P.N. Kalani
    Advocate for respondent No.1 : Mr. S. S. Dargad h/f Mr. S.G.
                         Chapalgaonkar
                              .....

                                            CORAM : S. G. DIGE, J.
                                            DATE : 30.09.2022

PER COURT :-


                Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned

counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the applicants

submits that respondents have challenged the judgment and

award passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

Nanded and has deposited entire award amount before this Court.

Wife of the applicant No.1 and mother of applicant Nos. 2 and 3

died in the said accident.           After the death of deceased, the

applicants are living miserable life and they are not able to

maintain themselves.            The applicants have raised loan amount

from the private person for the education purpose and to satisfy

domestic expenses as well as medical treatment.                              Hence

requested to allow the application.




::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2022                      ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2022 19:28:21 :::
                                            2           922- C. A. No. 5466-2021.odt




2.       It is contention of learned counsel for the respondents that

deceased was traveling in the goods vehicle. There was breach of

terms of insurance policy. In spite of that the Tribunal has passed

pay and recovery order which is challenged by the respondents

before this Court.              Hence, applicants are not entitled for

compensation from the insurance company and requested to

dismiss the application.



3.      I have heard both the learned counsel. Admittedly wife of

the applicant No.1 and mother of applicant No. 2 and 3 is died in

the accident.          Applicant no.1 has raised the loan to satisfy the

domestic expenses. He needs the amount for daily expenses and

for education purpose of applicant Nos. 2 and 3. The Tribunal has

passed pay and recovery order against the respondents. In view of

above I pass the following order

                                ORDER

(i) Application is allowed.

(ii) Applicants are permitted to withdraw 25% amount

along with accrued interest out of deposited amount

on furnishing undertaking.

( S.G. DIGE,) JUDGE ysk