1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6397 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.160 OF 2001 M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Registered head office at 43, Whites Road, Chennai, 600 014, Branch Office at Hanuman Chowk, Latur and Divisional Office at V.P. Chowk Station Road, Osmanpura, Aurangabad 431 005, Through its Divisional Manager and constituted Attorney Mr. A.B. Jawanjal. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1) Mr. Hanumant s/o Shamrao Waghate, R/o-Hisori, Post-Shirala, Tq. & Dist-Latur, 2) Gopal s/o Dhamaraj Patil, R/o-As above. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.V.N. Upadhye Advocate for Applicant. Mr.N.G. Kale Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.P.P. More Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 10TH JULY, 2009. 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. Upadhye, learned counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Kale, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and Mr. More, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 2. Present Civil Application is preferred by the original opponent No.2 Insurance Company for restraining Respondent No.1 to withdraw the amount from the trial Court. 3. The First Appeal is preferred by the Appellant against the Judgment and award dated 30th November, 2002 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Judge, Labour Court, Latur in Application (W.C.) No. 25 of 1997. The trial Court held that the original claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,20,996/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 21st October, 1996 till its realization. Learned counsel for the Applicant states that as per the order dated 30th November, 1999 passed by the trial Court, they deposited a sum of Rs. 1,68,534/- on 8th February, 2000. Thereafter the trial 3 Court allowed Respondent No.1 herein to withdraw 50% amount without furnishing any security and remaining sum of Rs.84,267/- came to be invested in the fixed deposit with State Bank of Hyderabad, Tilak Nagar, Latur. The said fixed deposit matured on 7th February, 2008. At present a sum of Rs.1,74,079/- is lying with the learned Court below. Applicant further states that Respondent No.1 filed application before the trial Court for withdrawal of the same sum of Rs.1,74,079/-. Learned counsel for the Applicant states that in any case the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation because there is breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 - original claimant, filed affidavit in reply dated 7th July, 2009 opposing the present Civil Application. It is the case of the Respondent No.1 that for last one year he is suffering from tuberculosis and under regular treatment at Pune Municipal Corporation Hospital at Pimpri Chinchwad. He has annexed xerox copies of medical papers as Exhibit A-1 collectively. He further submitted that due to the 4 accident dated 21st October, 1996 he is unable to do the work as driver. He further submitted that his son Govind Hanumant Waghate, aged about 17 years is also suffering from tuberculosis and is also under the treatment at Pune. It is the case of learned counsel for Respondent No.1 that Respondent No.1 is entitled to withdraw the said amount because the truck was fully insured with the Applicant. 5. Considering the above mentioned submissions of the Applicant as well as Respondent No.1, it is clear that the trial Court allowed the Respondent No.1 to withdraw originally 50% amount without furnishing any security. As the First Appeal is pending for hearing and final disposal and it will take some time and considering the facts stated by Respondent No.1 in his affidavit in reply, Respondent No.1 is entitled to withdraw remaining amount on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial Court except bank guarantee. It is directed that the trial Court shall, before allowing Respondent No.1 to withdraw the remaining amount, issue notice to the Applicant Insurance Company and they are entitled to raise objection about solvency of the security, if any. 5 Therefore, following order: O R D E R 1) Respondent No.1 - original claimant is entitled to withdraw remaining amount on furnishing solvent security other than bank guarantee, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 2) Insurance Company is entitled to raise objection about solvency of the security. 3) Civil Application disposed of accordingly. [K.K. TATED, J.] asb/JULY09/ca6397.09