Corteva Crop India Private Limited v. Sunita Goma Chaudhari And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3495 OF 2024.

Corteva Crop India Private Limited

...Petitioner

Vs Sunita Goma Chaudhari and Ors.

...Respondents

------ Mr. Amit Singh a/w. Mr. Kabeer Pansare i/b Abhay Nevagi and Asso. for the Petitioner.

------ CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE : 22nd JANUARY, 2025.

P. C. :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that as on 11/5/2021 the ownership of the vehicle in question was already transferred to some other vehicle owner. In support of his submission learned counsel relied upon the possession certificate and also car delivery receipt dated 1/3/2018. The Insurance Company has taken a stand that the present petitioner was not the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident. There are other documents relied upon in support of this stand. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, MACT) 1 of

by order dated 7/3/2022 passed below Exhibit 13 rejected the application with costs. From the order dated 7/3/2022 it appears that the relevant documents which would be necessary to support the claim of the applicant that the petitioner was not the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident were not produced. 2.

The Petitioner therefore filed another application below Exhibit 18 for the same relief praying deletion of its name based on additional documents. By the impugned order dated 31/10/2023 the application was rejected.

3.

The application below Exhibit 18 was rejected on two grounds one that similar application was filed on earlier occasion was rejected and secondly that the order passed below Exhibit 13 was not challenged had attained finality.

4.

I am not inclined to issue notice to the respondent/claimant in the light of the order that I propose to pass. Suffice it to observe that if the petitioners prefer an appropriate application along with the supporting documents in support of the contention that their name should be deleted, the same be considered by the Tribunal on its own merits afresh without being influenced by the order passed 2 of

below Exhibit 13 and 18.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submitted that claimants will be compensated with payment of cost of Rs.25,000/-. The statement made on instructions is accepted. The payment of cost to the claimants will be condition precedent for entertaining the fresh application if made for deletion of its name. The said application be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. I have not made any observations on the merits of the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

6.

The petition is disposed of. No costs.

[M. S. KARNIK, J.] 3 of