IA/1575/2026 of MANISHA MAHESH PAWAR AND ORS. Vs CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THR. ITS AUTH. REP. on 9 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1575 OF 2026

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO. 109 OF 2026

Manisha Mahesh Pawar And Ors.

...Applicants

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.

...Appellant

Versus

Manisha Mahesh Pawar & Ors.

...Respondents

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.9410 OF 2026

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO. 109 OF 2026

Bhagwan Ranganath Pawar

...Applicant

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

...Appellant

Versus

Manisha Mahesh Pawar & Ors.

...Respondents

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 697 OF 2026

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO. 109 OF 2026

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr.

Its Authorized Representative

...Applicant

Versus

Manisha Mahesh Pawar And Ors.

...Respondents

WITH

CROSS OBJECTION STAMP (STAMP) NO. 8074 OF 2026

ZIP

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO. 109 OF 2026

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Thr. Its Authorized Representative

...Petitioner

Versus

Manisha Mahesh Pawar And Ors.

...Respondents

…...

Adv. Santosh D. Bhosale a/w Adv. Amol S. Deshinge, Advocate for the Applicants in IA/1575/2026 and for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in First Appeal.

Adv. Abhay A. Jadhavar a/w Adv. Rutik Kashid, for Applicant in IAst/9410/2026 and for Respondent No.5 in First Appeal.

Adv. P. D. Alawekar a/w Adv. A. S. Jambilkar, Advocate for the Respondent – Cholamandalam Insurance Company in IA/1575/2026.

…..

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

DATE : 9th OCTOBER, 2026.

P.C. :

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO. 109 OF 2026

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.9410 OF 2026

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO. 109 OF 2026

The Interim Application (st) No.9410 of 2026 is not on Board.

Taken on Board.

2.

Heard.

3.

The applicants are seeking withdrawal of the amount of Rs.86,37,334/-. The respondent–Insurance Company has deposited ZIP

Rs.86,37,334/- pursuant to the order passed by this Court. This Court had directed the Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the amount as a condition precedent for granting stay. The claimants are the dependents of the deceased, and they have filed separate applications for withdrawal of the amount.

4.

The widow and the children of the deceased are staying separately from the father of the deceased. The widow has the liability of herself and her children, on the one hand, whereas, on the other hand, the father of the deceased is a single person. They are claiming disbursement for the reasons assigned in their separate applications. It is contended that the income of the deceased was well-founded and, accordingly, just compensation has been awarded by the Court. The Insurance Company has deposited a very inadequate amount, and, therefore, the applicants are praying for the entire amount deposited in the Court.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that, this Court while granting stay directed the Insurance Company to deposit Rs.62,00,000/- of the amount. Considering the findings recorded by the Tribunal, it is submitted that the quantum is totally disproportionate and arbitrary. No evidence is placed on record to show that there was income of Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. It is contended that its a false accident and even the income tax returns are ZIP

concocted.

6.

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. I have gone through the impugned judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal. The factum of death and the dependency of both the applicants are not disputed. This Court permitted the Insurance Company to deposit only Rs.62,00,000/- and, accordingly, with interest amount of Rs.86,37,334/, is deposited. Prima facie, the quantum arrived at by Tribunal is vulnerable. The income of the deceased has not been proved specifically. It would be inappropriate at this stage of the proceedings to arrive at any definite conclusion. Hence, I am not inclined to permit them to receive the entire deposited amount.

7.

Considering the requirements and the sufferings of the family, it would be appropriate to release an amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- in apportionment as per the Tribunal. Hence, I pass the following order :