Bombay High Court
IA/971/2026 of NARSINGH @ NARSINH RAMCHANDRA PAWAR Vs CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. on 16 October 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3334 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 10268 OF 2018 Cholamandalam M.s. General Insurance Co. Ltd. … Appellant Vs. Mr. Narsingh @ Narsinh Ramchandra Pawar … Respondent WITH
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3334 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 10268 OF 2018 Cholamandalam M.s. General Insurance Co. Ltd. … Appellant Vs. Mr. Narsingh @ Narsinh Ramchandra Pawar … Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 971 OF 2026 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 10268 OF 2018 Narsingh @ Narsinh Ramchandra Pawar & Ors. … Applicants Vs. Cholamandalam M.s. General Insurance Co. Ltd. … Respondent WITH
IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 10268 OF 2018 Cholamandalam M.s. General Insurance Co. Ltd. … Appellant Vs. Mr. Narsingh @ Narsinh Ramchandra Pawar … Respondent …………. Mr. Santosh D. Bhosale a/w Amol S. Deshinge for the Applicant. Mr. Ashitosh S. Jambilkar a/w P. D. Alawekar for the original appellant – Insurance company. …………. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 16th OCTOBER, 2026. Uday S. Jagtap 1 of
P. C. : I.A. NO. 971 OF 2026 . The applicants seek withdrawal of amount of Rs. 42,11,778/- deposited by the respondent – Insurance company.
2. For the reasons stated in the application the withdrawal is solicited. It is contended that the deceased was the bread earner and no amount has been disbursed to the claimant so far.
3. The application is contested by the respondents. It is contended that Insurance company has every hope of success in the appeal. There is no foundation for awarding the exorbitant compensation. The quantum is arbitrary and unreasonable.
4. The applicants are dependent upon the deceased. There is no dispute about the death and the insurance coverage of the offending vehicle. The dispute pertains to the quantum mainly. Interest of the respondent – Insurance company can be safeguarded by reserving 30% of the amount. The necessity expressed by the applicant cannot be discarded.
5. The application is allowed partly permitting the applicant to receive 70% of the amount with interest by furnishing undertaking to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Tribunal.
2 of
6. The balance amount shall be invested in the Nationalised bank. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3334 OF 2018
7. The applicant seeks to condone the delay of 1 year and 10 days in preferring the appeal.
8. The respondent has no serious objection for condoning the delay.
9. No mala fides can be inferred on the part of the applicant in preferring the appeal belatedly.
10. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay stand condoned.
11. The application is disposed of. FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 10268 OF 2018
12. Heard.
13. Admit.
14. Mr. Bhosale, waives service for the respondents.
15. Call for record and proceedings.
16. Print is dispensed with.
17. Parties shall be at liberty to file paper book, private paper book or compilation of documents.
3 of
I.A. No. 3335 of 2018
18. As the amount is deposited by the Insurance company, ad-interim relief granted earlier shall stand confirmed.
19. The application is disposed of. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) Uday S. Jagtap 4 of