[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Jakiyabee Rahimsha Fakir And Ors vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr Div. ... on 23 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:2903
CA-6159-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6159 OF 2021
IN CROSS OBJECTION STAMP NO. 16552/2020
Smt. Jakiyabee Rahimsha Fakir
and Others ...Applicants
Versus
The United India Insurance Company Ltd
and Another ...Respondents
***
• Mr. M. M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for the Applicants
• Mr. S. V. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1
• Mr. K. V. Sarosiya h/f Mr. S. S. Bora, Advocate for Respondent No.2
***
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J
RESERVED ON : JANUARY 20, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 23, 2026
ORDER :
1. The present Civil Application is filed for condonation of
delay of 3087 days in filing Cross Objection challenging the judgment
and order dated 28.02.2011 passed by MACT, Jalgaon in MACP No.
519/2004.
2. At the outset, learned Counsel for the Applicants submits
that, the delay has occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable reasons
and not on account of any negligence, inaction, or lack of diligence on
the part of the Applicants. He further submits that, subsequent to the
passing of the impugned award, Applicants have applied for certified
PAGE 1 OF 4
CA-6159-2021.odt
copies of the judgment and award and so also, Applicants were facing
financial hardship due to the money spent in treatment of deceased.
Owing to these circumstances, the Applicants could not immediately
take steps to prefer the appeal. He further submitted that, even
otherwise, there is no bar for claimants to urge for enhancement of
compensation without filing of cross-objection. On this count, he seeks
reliance on judgment of this Court in case of Reliance General
Insurance Co. vs. Manju Vikram Choudhary and Others , 2021 (3) ABR
330.
3. Learned Counsels for Respondents opposes the Application.
4. The law on the issue of enhancement of just compensation
in an appeal preferred by the insurance company is very loud, clear, and
well settled. This Court, while deciding the First Appeal No. 1271/2019,
has referred to the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of
Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors, (2003) 2 SCC 274 & Jitendra
Khimshankar Trivedi and Others vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and
Others, (2015) 4 SCC 237, wherein, Apex Court has held that " As
against the award passed by the Tribunal even though the claimants
have not filed any appeal, as it is obligatory on the part of courts/the
Tribunals to award just and reasonable compensation, it is appropriate
to increase the compensation".
PAGE 2 OF 4
CA-6159-2021.odt
5. The appellate jurisdiction exercised by this Court is not
dependent upon who has preferred the appeal. The duty cast upon the
Court is to determine whether the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just, fair, and reasonable. If, upon such examination, the
Court finds that the compensation awarded is inadequate or has been
determined by applying erroneous principles, the Court is not only
empowered but is duty bound to correct such inadequacy by awarding
just compensation.
6. Proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are beneficial and
welfare-oriented in nature. The act is intended to provide relief to
victims of motor accidents and their dependents, and therefore,
technical rules of procedure cannot be permitted to override substantive
justice. Requiring the original claimant to file a distinct appeal or cross-
objection as a precondition for seeking enhancement, even when the
award is already under challenge before the Appellate Court, would
amount to elevating form over substance and would defeat the very
object of the legislation.
7. In view of the above settled legal position, the Civil
Application filed by Applicants/Original Claimants deserves to be
allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass following order:
PAGE 3 OF 4
CA-6159-2021.odt
ORDER
(a) Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'b'.
Delay stands condoned.
(b) Registry to register the cross-objection.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Umesh
PAGE 4 OF 4
