Kakasaheb Bhimrao Gaikwad vs Mahadev Shrirang Zombade And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 14042 Bom

Bombay High Court

Kakasaheb Bhimrao Gaikwad vs Mahadev Shrirang Zombade And Anr on 3 May, 2024

2024:BHC-AUG:9678
                                                  1                        909-CA-2789-24.odt




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2789 OF 2024 IN FA/3493/2023

                                KAKASAHEB BHIMRAO GAIKWAD
                                            VERSUS
                        MAHADEV SHRIRANG ZOMBADE AND ANOTHER
                                               ...
                           Advocate for Applicant : Mr. S. B. Choudhari
                Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. D. P. Deshpande (through V.C.)
                                               ...


                                                      CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
                                                      DATE         : 03-05-2024
                PER COURT :-


                1.    Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned

                counsel for respondent No.2/insurer.


                2.    Respondent    No.2/insurer,     who    has    been   saddled     with

                liability, has strongly opposed the application contending that the

                driver of the offending vehicle was holding no valid license.

                Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay.                 The

                Regional Transport Officer was examined and it was established

                that the driver of the insured vehicle was having no valid driving

                license. This is a fit case for exonerating the insurer from liability.

                However, this aspect has not been considered.


                3.    Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the claim is a

                third party having no concern with insurer and insured.                 The
                                  2                  909-CA-2789-24.odt



offending vehicle insured with the insurance company has caused

the accident. Out of compensation Rs.7,00,000/-, the amount of

Rs.3,75,000/- has been spent on medication.


4.     The grounds raised by the learned counsel for respondent

No.2/insurer would be considered on merit.


5.     It is a simple case of injury, granting a small amount

Rs.7,00,000/-, out of which Rs.3,75,000/- have been spent on

medication. Who is liable to pay would be determined on merit.

Whether this is a fit case to pay and recover can also be

considered only at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits.

The applicant is a third party. He should not be deprived of his

right to get compensation. Hence, the order;

                                ORDER

i) The application is allowed.

ii) The applicant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount

deposited with this Court with interest on furnishing

undertaking to deposit money, if the impugned judgment

and award is reversed.

iii) List the appeal on 01.08.2024.

( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE

rrd