Gujarat High Court
Shantaben Gordhanbhai Pithaya vs Icici Lombard General Insurance ... on 15 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9581/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9581 of 2025
==========================================================
SHANTABEN GORDHANBHAI PITHAYA
Versus
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 15/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hiren Modi for the petitioner. learned
Advocate Ms. Kirti Pathak has entered her appearance on advance
copy on behalf of respondent/insurance company.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India praying for appropriate writ, order or direction to quash
and set aside the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the learned
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.), Dahod at Limkheda in
MACP Misc. Application No.197 of 2024. By the said impugned
order, the tribunal has been pleased to reject the application
preferred by the original claimant. The further directions are also
sought for against the tribunal to release the entire amount to the
petitioner by way of Account Payee Check.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has forcefully submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9581/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
the Tribunal committed gross error in ignoring the fact that the
claimant had successfully proved her case and has been held
entitled to amount of compensation. The accident had taken place
way back in the year 2017. The claim petition preferred in the year
2017 was ultimately decided by the judgment and award dated
01.05.2019 holding the petitioner entitled to compensation of
Rs.1,18,067/-.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment and
award, the insurance company had approached in appeal which
was registered as First Appeal No.539 of 2020. However, the same
was not entertained at the threshold noticing the smallness of the
amount involved. The heavy reliance was placed on order dated
21.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
Civil Application (for withdrawal/disbursement of amount) No.1 of
2021 (filed in the aforesaid first appeal) preferred at the instance of
present petitioner/original claimant, whereby, the learned Single
Judge has been pleased to direct disbursement of 30% of the
amount deposited and 70% was directed to be deposited in fixed
deposit of cumulative nature in nationalized bank. While referring
to the aforesaid directions of this Court, learned advocate has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9581/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
submitted that the fixed deposits was though directed to be created
initially for a period of one year, the same was made renewable
subject to further orders. The claimants were also permitted to earn
periodical interest which may accrue on the invested amount. He
has therefore submitted that the Tribunal committed gross error in
passing the impugned order without considering the aforesaid
directions, more particularly, ignoring the fact that the main appeal
has been dismissed. In absence of any litigation, the claimant was
at least entitled to realize the fruits of the awarded amount and
therefore the Tribunal was expected to pass the order permitting to
release entire award amount.
5. Learned Advocate Ms. Kirti Pathak appearing for the
respondent/insurance company has urged this Court to pass
appropriate order in light of the facts of this case.
6. I have heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and have
also perused the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal
while not entertaining the application seeking release of entire
award amount. Admittedly, the proceedings initiated by the present
petitioner in the original claim petition seeking compensation
under Section 166 of the Act has attained finality in view of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9581/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
dismissal of the appeal of the insurance company. However,
considering the fact that this Court, while disposing the Civil
Application for disbursement of the amount had directed the
investment of the 70% of the fixed deposit amount initially for a
period of one year which was made renewable subject to further
orders, the Tribunal has though noted that the award amount
deposited in the fixed deposits in the nationalized bank, however it
is deposited for the period of five years in the FDR in the name of
the claimant. It appears that in view of dismissal of appeal, the
Tribunal has drawn conclusion that the direction of Tribunal of
original claim petition stands confirmed. Thus, the learned Judge
has held that in view of the dismissal of the first appeal, the
original order of tribunal being restored to its file, the accrued
interest in FDR is not permitted to be released.
7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by
learned Advocate for the petitioner. Though this Court at the stage
of hearing of application for stay has directed 70% of deposited
award to be invested in FDR for one year, subject to renewal, it has
been in FDR for five years.
8. Considering the fact that the FDR had been deposited on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9581/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
16.08.2021, and the period of five years is likely to set over in
August 2026, withdrawal of the amount at this stage would amount
to premature release of the FDR which may result in loss of
interest accrued. Even perusal of the averments made in the
petition, no substantive ground has been raised by the petitioner to
seek premature withdrawal of the amount at this stage. Hence,
considering the aforesaid reasons assigned by the Tribunal, the
same being in accordance with the principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Muljibhai vs.
United India Insurance Co. 1982 (1) GLR 756, no error or any
irregularity can be found with the impugned order passed by the
tribunal.
9. Hence, this Court is not inclined to exercise the extraordinary
supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, as no error can be found in the approach
of the Tribunal in refusing to entertain the application of
disbursement at this stage. Hence, the present petition being devoid
of any merit is not entertained and is hereby rejected.
10. At this stage, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner urged
this Court to at least issue appropriate directions to the Tribunal to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9581/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
release the FDR on completion of five years. Needless to clarify
that as and when the FDRs gets matured, the Tribunal shall be at
liberty to release the entire award amount lying in the Fixed
Deposit in favour of the claimant.
11. With these observations, the present petition stands disposed off.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
ACS
