Kokila Ganesh Wanare And Others v. Madan Parlhadrao Shinde And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10516 OF 2016 1.

Kokila Wd/o Ganesh Wanare, Age: 46 years, Occu: Household, R/o Thar, Tq Manwath, District Hingoli.

2.

Pankaj Ganesh Wanare, Age: 25 years, Occu: Education, R/o As above.

3.

Sanket Ganesh Wanare, Age: 24 years, Occu: Education, R/o As above.

4.

Renuka D/o Ganesh Wanare Age: 21 years, Occu: Education, R/o As above.

....Petitioners (Orig Claimants)

Versus

1.

Madan S/o Parlhadrao Shinde, Age: Major, Occu: Business, R/o Pimpala, Tq. Pathari, District Parbhani.

(Owner of Scorpio No MH 22, D 2339) 2.

Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd, Dayawan Complex, Main Road, Parbhani, Tq & Dist Parbhani.

...RespondentS.

(Orig Respondents) Mr. Pawankumar S, Agrawal, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. S.R. Bodade, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.

DATED : 15th December, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.

2) Present proceeding is filed to challenge the orde made in Claims Petition No. 628/2011 by the Claims Tribunal, Parbhani. When the application was moved for releasing the entire amount of compensation awarded in favour of petitioners, the Tribunal allowed the claimants to withdraw the amount of Rs. 1,94,645/- from respective fixed deposits which appears to be interest amount. The submissions made show that the Insurance Company has not challenged the decision of the Tribunal and the decision has become final.

3) The submissions was made that Renuka, petitioner No. 4 needs the amount for her marriage and petitioner No. 2 and 3 need amount as they can do some profitable business to earn their livelihood. However, the reason given in respect of petitioner No. 1 is not found sufficient. She is widow of the deceased. There is every possibility that out of love and affection, she may give entire amount to sons in future and sons may not provide protection to her. In view of this possibility, the amount cannot be released in favour of Kokila, petitioner No. 1.

However, she is entitled to receive quarterly interest on that amount.

4) In the result, the petition is allowed. The amounts kept in the names of petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are to be released in their favour. But the amount of Kokila, petitioner No. 1 is not to be released and she is entitled to receive quarterly interest on this amount. The order already made in favour of Kokila in respect of her entitlement to withdraw the amount of Rs. 1,94,645/- is kept intact and she is entitled to get that amount. So, the order made of rejection against petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 by the Tribunal is set aside.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ] ssc/