Pranjali Mahesh Mote And Ors vs Ganesh Mahadev Bhoge And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 1630 Bom

Bombay High Court

Pranjali Mahesh Mote And Ors vs Ganesh Mahadev Bhoge And Ors on 19 January, 2024

2024:BHC-AUG:1654
                                                1                       24-CA-632-24.odt




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                               CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 632 OF 2024
                                       IN FAST/19875/2022

                1.   Pranjali Mahesh Mote,
                2.   Manthan Mahesh Mote, (Minor),
                3.   Sanjay Machindra Mote,
                4.   Sunita Sanjay Mote
                     R/o. Ahmednagar                           ..    Applicants

                           Versus

                1.   Ganesh Mahadev Bhoge,
                2.   Pramodkumar Suryabhan Gore,
                3.   The Branch Manager, HDFC General
                     Insurance Co. Ltd., Pune                  ..    Respondents

                Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, Advocate for Applicants;
                Mr. Mohit R. Deshmukh, Advocate for Appellant/Respondent No.3

                                                    CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

                                                    DATE    : 19-01-2024

                PER COURT :-

1. Heard the learned counsel for appearing parties.

2. The appellant/insurer has preferred appeal mainly on the

point of quantum and source of the income of deceased. The

insurance company had a stand that so-called transport business

and agricultural operations were continued, therefore, there was

no loss in the business. Their stand also was that the employee

could not do additional business of transportation and agriculture.

This probability is not possible. He has also argued that his father 2 24-CA-632-24.odt

is doing the business, therefore, multiplier is incorrectly applied.

3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the facts

have been proved on leading evidence. The insurer has indirectly

admitted that the deceased was engaged in the transport

business. There was no evidence of having no loss from

agricultural operations.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants

are entitled to withdraw the deposited amount. Hence, the order;

i) Civil application is partly allowed.

ii) The applicants are entitled to withdraw 60% of the amount

deposited with accrued interest.

iii) The share of minor applicant No.2 be invested in the fixed

deposit under the guardianship of mother with accrued

interest at quarterly rest on furnishing an undertaking that

they will re-deposit the amount, if the judgment and order is

reversed.

( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE

rrd