1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 741 OF 2010 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 339 OF 2010 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .. Applicant/ Appellant. V/s. Mr. Vasudeo Lotu Thombare (Since deceased though his legal heirs Sanjeev Vasudeo Thombare and others .. Respondents. Mr. Ranjan Tripathi i/by S.M. Vidyarthi for the Appellant. Mr. Nilesh Bhutekar for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 17TH AUGUST, 2010. P.C. 1. We have already restored the appeal as against Respondent Nos. 1 (1) to 1(3) by separate order passed today in the appeal. Even the present application as against the said respondents would stand restored for the same reasons. By this application the Insurance Company prays for stay of operation of impugned judgment and award dated 8th October, 2009. As the Insurance Company has already deposited the entire decretal amount, relief as prayed for will have to be granted. 2 2. The question is whether the respondent Nos. 1(1) to 1(3) can be prevented from withdrawing the decretal amount deposited by the appellant. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the said respondents are not eligible for receiving any amount whatsoever, in as much as they are independent and not part of family of the original claimant. They are gainfully employed. The argument clearly overlooks that the present proceedings are continuation of the claim instituted by the father of the respondent Nos. 1(1) 1(3). In so far as father of Respondent Nos. 1(1) to 1 (3) is concerned, it is not the case of the Insurance Company that even he was not entitled for any amount towards compensation as claimed. It is also not in dispute that the award has been passed in favour of father of Respondent Nos. 1(1) to 1(3), original respondent during his life time. The respondent Nos. 1(1) to 1(3) have been brought on record only after the demise of original respondent No.1. In that sense, the the respondent Nos. 1 (1) o 1 (3) are espousing the cause of respondent No.1, having inherited his estate. Besides, there is document on record which goes to show that respondent No.1 did not file claim only to claim compensation for himself but had file the same for himself and power of attorney of other family members namely respondent Nos. 1(1) to 1(3). Taking any view of the matter, the objection raised by the appellant for disallowing the prayer for withdrawal of the decretal amount deposited by them cannot be countenanced. 3 3. The next argument of the appellant is that the appeal takes exception to the award including on the question of quantum determined by the lower Court, being excessive. Even so it is not the case of the appellant that the original claimant would not have been entitled for any compensation at all. The fact remains that the claim has been determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and there is order operating in their favour and directing the appellant to pay compensation amount. The relief cannot be denied to the claimants. At best the Court can impose suitable conditions to ensure that the amount to be withdrawn by the claimants would be brought back either as a whole or in part alongwith interest accrued thereon from the date of withdrawal till the date of deposit. The respondent Nos. 1(1) to 1 (3) through Counsel submits that they have no objection for imposing such conditions. In the circumstances, we dispose of this application on the following terms. 4. We are conscious of the fact that the application as well as the appeal is already dismissed against original respondent No.2. However for considering the relief claimed in this application his presence is not necessary. 5. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following order. 4 (i) Interim relief of stay of operation of the impugned judgment and award is granted, which shall continue during the pendency of the appeal. (ii) The respondent Nos. 1(1) to 1(3) are allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant in the lower Court on complying the following two conditions. (a) They shall furnish solvent security to the extent of the amount to be withdrawn by them to the satisfaction of the trial Court. (b) They shall file undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today to the effect that in the event the Court were to so direct the entire or portion of the amount withdrawn by them will be brought back to the Court along with the interest if any, at the appropriate stage. 6. If the respondents fail to comply with the above two conditions within four weeks from today, the trial Court shall invest the amount in appropriate fixed deposit scheme in a Nationalized Bank. Application disposed of. (A.A.SAYED,J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)