Gujarat High Court High Court

Lalitaben vs National on 7 September, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Lalitaben vs National on 7 September, 2011
Author: A.M.Kapadia, Honourable Dave,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/4224/2006	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR ORDERS No. 4224 of 2006
 

=========================================================


 

LALITABEN
HIMSINGH KATARA HEIRS OF DECD. HIMSINGH M. & 2
 

 -
Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & 4 ?  Respondent(s)
 

 


 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
UM SHASTRI for Applicant(s) : 1 - 3. 
MR.
C.A.MEHTA for MS MEGHA JANI for Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for
Respondent(s) : 2 ?  5.
 

 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.S.DAVE
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 10/04/2006 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)

RULE.

Mr. C.A.Mehta, learned advocate for Ms. Megha Jani, learned advocate
appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of contesting
Respondent No.1 ? National Insurance Company Limited. There is no
need to issue Rule on the other Respondents because admittedly the
amount due under the award has been deposited by Respondent no.1 ?
National Insurance Company Limited.

By
filing this Application, the Applicants / original claimants have
prayed to pass necessary order regarding disbursement of the amount
awarded in their favour and deposited by Respondent No.1 ?
National Insurance Co. Ltd. with the Tribunal concerned.

The
Applicants have filed MACP No. 1123 of 2000 before the MACT,
Panchmahals at Godhra to recover compensation of Rs.10,20,000/- on
account of untimely demise of Himsingh Maganbhai Katara, who had
died in a road accident. The MACT, Godhra has passed award in
favour of the Applicants to the extent of Rs.4,00,000/- together
with interest and costs thereon against the insurer of both
Insurance Companies in the ratio of 80:20. The Appellant –
Insurance Company is fasten with the liability of the 80% of the
total awarded amount.

Aggrieved
thereby, the Appellant – Insurance Company filed First Appeal No.
3299 of 2005, which came to be admitted by a Division Bench of this
Court vide order dated 24.10.2005 and in the Civil Application for
stay, Rule has been issued and impugned award has been stayed on
condition to deposit the awarded amount which has come to the share
of the Insurance Company.

Mr.

C.A.Mehta, learned advocate of Respondent No.1 ? Appellant –
Insurance Company Limited, upon instructions received from the
Appellant – Insurance Company Ltd., states that the Insurance
Company has deposited Rs.4,02,323/- with the MACT, Godhra and the
amount of Rs.25,000/-, which has been deposited at the time of
filing of this Appeal, has already been transmitted to the Tribunal
concerned.

We
have considered the submissions advanced by Mr. U.M.Shastri, learned
advocate of the Applicants / original claimants and Mr. C.A.Mehta,
learned advocate for respondent no.1 ? National Insurance Company
Ltd.

Having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that
from the amount deposited under award by Respondent No.1 ?
National Insurance Company Ltd. pursuant to the order dated
24.10.2005, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil
Application No. 10899 of 2005, it will be open for the Applicant
No.1, who is a guardian of Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 to withdraw 30% of
the amount and rest of the amount payable to the Applicants under
award shall be invested in a fixed deposit in any of the
Nationalized Banks in equal proportion in the name of three
Applicants initially for a period of three years yielding higher
rate of interest, subject to further renewal from time to time, till
the appeal is finally heard. The Applicants are permitted to
withdraw interest accrued thereon periodically.

Needless
to mention that the Applicants are not permitted to encash the said
FDR prematurely or create any charge upon the same without prior
permission of the Court.

Application
is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute. No order as to
costs.

DS
permitted.

(A.M.Kapadia,J)

(A.S.Dave,J)

Jayanti*

   

Top