Bombay High Court
SADASHIV RAMCHANDRA KUDTARKARversusDINESH PANDURANG SHERE AND ANR.
- Disposal
- Abated
Holding
The appeal was dismissed as abated due to the death of the sole appellant.
Summary
The appeal arose from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award of Rs.2,50,000 with 9% interest to the claimant. The tribunal had also allowed the second respondent to recover the amount from the first appellant under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant, Sadashiv Ramchandra Kudtarkar, did not appear before the Lok Adalat and was later reported dead. The respondent’s counsel informed the court of the appellant’s death, and the matter was removed from the Lok Adalat. The court held that the death of the sole appellant caused the appeal to abate, and consequently dismissed the appeal as abated.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of the death of a sole appellant on a pending appeal?
- Does the Lok Adalat have jurisdiction to proceed when the appellant is deceased?
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 174
Subjects
- Motor accident claim
- Appeal
- Abatement
- Death of party
- Lok Adalat
- Section 174
- Motor Vehicles Act
Judgment
224-FA-589-2005 (C).docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 589 OF 2005
Sadashiv Ramchandra Kudtarkar …...Petitioner
Versus
Dinesh Pandurang Shere And Anr. …...Respondent
——————
None for Appellant.
Mr. Shubham Gangan i/b. Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade for Respondent No.1.
——————
Coram : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
Date : 28th September 2026.
PER COURT :
1. This Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Award dated 9th October
2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ratnagiri, in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No. 23 of 2001.
2. The Appellant is the original Opponent No. 1 (Sadashiv Ramchandra
Kudtarkar) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 23 of 2001.
3. By the Judgment and Award dated 9th October 2003, the Claimant has
been awarded an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of
9% per annum.
Digitally signed
by OMKAR
SHIVAHAR
OMKAR KUMBHAKARN
SHIVAHAR
KUMBHAKARN Date:
2026.09.29
10:01:12
+0530
osk 1 of 2
224-FA-589-2005 (C).docx
4. Respondent No. 2 in the present Appeal, i.e. original Opponent No. 2,
was granted liberty to pay the amount to the Claimant and recover the same
from Appellant - Opponent No. 1 under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988.
5. Today, the name of the Advocate for the Appellant / Advocate on
Record (Mr. Arfan Sait), was called out by the Sheristedar. None appears,
either physically or through V.C. mode.
6. This Appeal was placed before the Lok Adalat. Mr. Shubham Gangan,
learned Advocate for the Respondent No.1 refers to the order dated 1 st
December 2024 passed in this Appeal, which reads as follows :
“1. Learned counsel for the Respondent is present. None for
the Appellant. Learned counsel for the Respondent states
that the Appellant has expired.
2. List the Appeal before the Regular Court. Remove from
the board of Lok Adalat.”
7. In view of the statement recorded on 1 st December 2024 before the
Special Lok Adalat, upon the death of the sole Appellant (Sadashiv
Ramchandra Kudtarkar), this Appeal stands abated.
8. In view of the above, First Appeal No. 589 of 2005 stands dismissed as
abated.
[ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ]
osk 2 of 2
Checking your session…