Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Rajula vs Oriental

High Court Of Gujarat|11 April, 2012

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Heard learned advocate Mr. Acharya for learned advocate Mr. P.R. Nanavati appearing on behalf of applicants and learned advocate Mr. Sunil B. Parikh for learned advocate Mr. Mehta appearing on behalf of opponent insurance company.
This application is filed by applicants claimants with a prayer to disburse Rs.80,000/- in favour of applicants - claimants for education purpose.
Learned advocate Mr. Parikh raised objection for disbursement of any amount in favour of applicants claimants, because, he submitted that it was an admission of claimant injured person travelling in private vehicle on hire and reward, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation to claimants.
The claims tribunal has awarded Rs.98,745/- being a compensation in favour of claimant with interest which comes to Rs.1,79,113/- is deposited by insurance company. The prayer is made to disburse Rs.80,000/- in favour of applicants for education purpose.
I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties and also considering objection raised by learned advocate Mr. Parikh, according to my opinion, some part of interest amount only must have to be disbursed in favour of claimants.
Therefore, it is directed to claims tribunal concerned to pay Rs.40,000/- to Smt. Rajul Dhirenbhai Shah widow of Dhirenbhai P. Shah by account payee cheque after proper verification. Rest of amount is to be invested in a Nationalised Bank for a period of three years with cumulative interest with periodical renewal till the appeal is finally decided by this Court. The said FDR is though in the name of claimants, but, remained with Nazir of claims tribunal concerned till appeal is finally decided by this Court.
It is made clear to claimant by this Court that interim relief is operating against insurance company only. There is no interim relied operating against owner and driver of vehicle. Therefore, it is open for claimant to recover amount of compensation from owner and driver of vehicle.
In view of above observations and direction, present application is disposed of.
[H.K.
RATHOD, J.] #Dave Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Rajula vs Oriental

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
11 April, 2012