1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.F. NO.1298/2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1595/2008 The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. -Vs- Laxman Haribhau Bende and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 27, 2010. 1) The appeal is admitted as a strong prima facie case, has been made out by the appellant Insurance Company. It is necessary to note that the original claimants are the son and the daughter-in-law of one Kalavatibai, who was the widow of Haribhau Bende. The tractor, which was involved in the accident and which resulted in the death of the son of the applicants, was insured with the appellant Insurance Company and was owned by Haribhau Bende. The respondent No.5 to this appeal was the owner of the trolley attached to the tractor. The trolley was not insured with any insurance company, much less the appellant Insurance Company. It was the case of the claimants that the driver of the tractor was rash and negligent in driving the same and as 2 a result of the negligence, the tractor turned turtle and the deceased died of the injuries sustained by him. 2) The Tribunal on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the appellant Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and Smt.Kalavatibai and the driver of the tractor were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to the claimants. Though, the appellant Insurance Company was not held liable to pay the amount, the Insurance Company was directed to pay the same to the claimants and then realize the amount from the owner of the tractor i.e. Kalavatibai and the driver of the tractor by name Gajanan. 3) Since the owner of the tractor is the mother of the claimant No.1 and the mother-in-law of the claimant No.2, the claimants can recover the amount from Smt.Kalavatibai. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant Insurance Company has made out a strong case for rejecting the civil application for withdrawal of the amount. 4) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the application for withdrawal of the amount is rejected. The amount deposited by the appellant in this Court may be placed in the fixed deposit account of a nationalized bank initially for the period of three years and the same should be renewed thereafter from time to time during the pendency of the first appeal. Such a direction is all the more necessary, 3 because the question whether the Insurance Company should first pay the amount to the claimants and then recover it from the owner in cases where the Insurance Company is not held liable to pay compensation to the claimants is referred to the larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the said question is not yet decided. Civil application is therefore, dismissed. JUDGE KHUNTE