Bombay High Court
IA/1629/2026 of SANTOSH HARI KHARAT AND ORS. Vs ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE CP. LTD. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER on 15 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1629 OF 2026 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 332 OF 2026 Santosh Hari Kharat and another .. Applicants Versus Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. The Divisional
1 66-IA-1629-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1629 OF 2026
IN
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 332 OF 2026
Santosh Hari Kharat and another
.. Applicants
Versus
Royal Sundaram General Insurance
Co. Ltd. The Divisional Manager
and another
.. Respondents
Shri Santosh Dattatray Bhosale, Advocate for the Applicants.
Shri P. D. Alvekar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 15TH OCTOBER, 2026.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
FINAL ORDER :
. The applicants are seeking withdrawal of amount of Rs. 21,48,816/- deposited by the respondent No. 1 – insurance company.
2. Applicants’ son succumbed to the injuries in the accident and the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 1. The deceased is stated to have been engaged as a driver by the respondent No. 2 – owner. It is submitted that the Insurance Company did not lead any evidence before the Commissioner. Considering the dire necessity expressed in the application, the applicants pray for disbursement of the amount. 2026:BHC-KOL:10068
2 66-IA-1629-2026
3. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 – Insurance company would submit that the claimants and the owner of the vehicle are in collusion. The claim set out before the Commissioner is not entertainable. The insurance company is not liable to pay anything.
4. The contentious issues can be dealt with at the time of hearing of the first appeal. The death of the son of the applicants in an accident cannot be disputed. The respondent No. 1 – Insurance company did not lead any evidence. The ends of justice would be met by permitting the applicants to receive 70% of the amount deposited with accrued interest.
5. Interim application is allowed permitting the applicants to receive 70% of the amount deposited with accrued interest on furnishing undertaking to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Commissioner. The balance amount shall be invested in any nationalized bank. Interim application stands disposed of. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]
bsb/Oct. 26