Branch Managersaheb Bajaj Alliance ... vs Nitin Sainath Girme And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 13716 Bom

Bombay High Court

Branch Managersaheb Bajaj Alliance ... vs Nitin Sainath Girme And Others on 2 May, 2024

                            1                 16-CA.4426-24 (16,17).odt


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

          16 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4426 OF 2024
                 IN FAST/11287/2024 WITH
           CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4427 OF 2024
                    IN FAST/11287/2024
     BRANCH MANAGERSAHEB BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL
              INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
                          VERSUS
            NITIN SAINATH GIRME AND OTHERS

                                AND

        17 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4428 OF 2024
                IN FAST/11290/2024 WITH
          CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4429 OF 2024
                   IN FAST/11290/2024
   BRANCH MANAGER SAHEB BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL
             INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
                         VERSUS
 SUNIL DEVRAM PAWAR THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND WIFE
         SOW LATA SUNIL PAWAR AND OTHERS
                               ...
        Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Deshmukh Mohit R.
                               ...

                          CORAM :     S. G. MEHARE, J.

                          DATE :      02.05.2024
PER COURT :-

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Issue notice to the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that arising

out of the same accident, three petitions including these two

were filed before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,

Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. The first claim petition 2 16-CA.4426-24 (16,17).odt

bearing MACP No.10 of 2017 was dismissed on accepting that

the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. After

the said dismissal, the legal heirs of the deceased approached

to the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act

and Labour Judge. That case is pending. Thereafter, these two

petitions were filed. The earlier judgment of MACP No.10 of

2017 was placed before the Tribunal, but it did not consider it

and saddle the liability upon the applicant/appellant.

4. In view of the facts of the case, there appears grounds

for consideration. Hence, there shall be interim stay to the

execution, implementation of the impugned judgment and

award, on the condition to deposit the entire amount of

compensation, as per the impugned judgment and award with

interest within eight (8) weeks from today.

5. If the money is not deposited in a given time, the stay

would be vacated automatically.

6. There shall be no extension of time to deposit the money

as directed.

7. Stand over to 25.07.2024.

(S. G. MEHARE, J.) ...

vmk/-