Bombay High Court
RANJANA POPAT KOLAPE AND ORS.versusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Rejected
Holding
The court allowed the cross‑objection for enhanced compensation but rejected the amendment of the claim petition.
Summary
The High Court considered two interim applications in Appeal No. 372 of 2005 between New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ranjana Popat Kolape et al. The first application sought to amend the claim petition to increase the compensation from Rs 5 lakh to Rs 10 lakh, which the insurer opposed as untimely. The second application was a cross‑objection for enhanced compensation, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh that tribunals may award just compensation. The court noted the extreme delay—over 20 years since the original appeal—but, invoking the principle of condonation, allowed the cross‑objection while rejecting the amendment of the claim petition. The matter was adjourned for final disposal.
Issues considered
- Whether an amendment to the claim petition seeking higher compensation is permissible at a belated stage.
- Whether a cross‑objection for enhanced compensation can be entertained despite a substantial delay, in light of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh.
- Whether evidence previously unconsidered by the tribunal can be reopened for determining compensation.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- amendment of pleadings
- cross‑objection
- compensation
- insurance claim
- delay
- condonation
- Motor Vehicles Act
- tribunal jurisdiction
- evidence
- just compensation
Judgment
1-FA-372-2005+IA-13229-2023+IA(ST)-26226-2025+XOB(ST)-20848-2025-IN-FA-372-
2005.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.372 OF 2005
Digitally signed
SATISH
by SATISH
RAMCHANDRA
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
SANGAR
RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR Date:
2026.08.18
11:11:07
+0530 V/s.
Ranjana Popat Kolape and Ors. ...Respondents
===================================================
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.13229 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.26226 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.372 OF 2005
Ranjana Popat Kolape and Ors. ...Applicants
In the matter between:-
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
V/s.
Ranjana Popat Kolape and Ors. ...Respondents
===================================================
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO.20848 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.372 OF 2005
New India Assurance Company Limited ...Appellant
V/s.
Ranjana Popat Kolape and Ors. ...Respondents
===================================================
Satish Sangar 1/4
1-FA-372-2005+IA-13229-2023+IA(ST)-26226-2025+XOB(ST)-20848-2025-IN-FA-372-
2005.doc
Mrs.Jyoti Bajpayee a/w Ms.Renuka Advocates for Appellant
Yadav:- Insurance Company.
Mr.D.D.Shinde a/w Mr.Y.G.Thorat:- Advocates for Respondents in
First Appeal and for Applicants
in Interim Applications.
====================================================
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 17th AUGUST 2026
P. C. :-
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.13229 OF 2023
AND
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.26226 OF 2025
1. Heard learned Advocate for the Respondents/Claimants and
learned Advocate for Appellant Insurance Company.
2. These are two Interim Applications filed on behalf of the
Claimants. One is for seeking permission to amend the Claim Petition
so that the amount of compensation should be Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees
Ten Lakh) instead of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh). There is a
strong objection on behalf of the Insurance Company that amendment
in the Claim Petition is not permissible at a belated stage.
3. The second Interim Application is filed for filing Cross-
objection in order to claim enhanced compensation. It is on the basis of
the observations in case of Nagappa V/s. Gurudayal Singh and others1.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reinforced the power of the Tribunal
1 2003 ACJ 12
Satish Sangar 2/4
1-FA-372-2005+IA-13229-2023+IA(ST)-26226-2025+XOB(ST)-20848-2025-IN-FA-372-
2005.doc
not only to award compensation claimed by the claimant but to award
just compensation.
4. It is the submission of learned Advocate Shri.Shinde that his
client does not want to adduce fresh evidence but on the basis of
evidence which was already adduced but not considered by the
Tribunal, he is desirous of requesting this Court to decide the claim for
enhanced compensation. It is submitted on behalf of the learned
Advocate Ms.Bajpayee that even the Tribunal has not considered their
evidence on the point of absence of driving license of the driver of the
offending vehicle and her contention is the deceased was a passenger in
a goods vehicle and is not covered as per the policy and as per the
Motor Vehicles Act which was prevailing at that time.
5. The grounds about merits can be considered subsequently. No
doubt, it is true that there is a huge delay of filing Cross-objection but
it is also a matter of record that the Appeal is heard after more than 20
years. This Court is inclined to allow the Application for condoning
the delay and filing Cross-objection. It is allowed. Copy of the Cross-
objection is served on the other side.
6. In view of that, the Application No.13229 of 2023 for
amendment in the Claim Petition does not survive. It is rejected.
Satish Sangar 3/4
1-FA-372-2005+IA-13229-2023+IA(ST)-26226-2025+XOB(ST)-20848-2025-IN-FA-372-
2005.doc
7. Stand over to 24th August 2026 “For Final Disposal”.
[S. M. MODAK, J.]
Satish Sangar 4/4
Checking your session…