Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2265 (BOM)

Bajaj Allianz General insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sangita

2014-11-11

S.B.SHUKRE

body2014
Order S.B. Shukre, J. 1. Heard. This application has been opposed by the learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 on the ground that there are some other cases in which only directions regarding pay and recover have been passed and, therefore, there is no need to allow this application by modifying the impugned judgment and award. I would have accepted the argument opposing this application had it been the case that while passing judgment and award in this matter, this Court had completely followed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Agrawal and others vs. Mushtari Begum and others, (2005) ACC 357 (SC). When the specific directions were given, by following this law, this Court gave one direction, which is on the face of it is not consistent with the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Agrawal and others. 2. In paragraph 11 of the judgment in that case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed that before release of the amount to the claimants, the owner of the vehicle shall furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. Whereas, in this case, this Court has directed that in case there is a failure to furnish security by the concerned owner, the amount deposited by the Insurance Company shall be released in favour of the claimants. This direction, being on the face of it, contrary to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court is required to be deleted as an error apparent, and accordingly this direction stands deleted and it is substituted by the direction that before releasing the amount, the Tribunal shall follow all the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Agrawal and another. Since the amount has been already deposited, the other direction regarding depositing of the decretal amount within three months has also become redundant and, therefore, the direction given to that effect in the judgment and decree dated 21-7-2014 shall be treated as redundant. The application is allowed accordingly.