Bombay High Court

RUPESH MANOHAR PAWARversusRELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court allowed the applicant to receive 60% of the deposited amount with accrued interest, subject to an undertaking, and directed the balance to be invested in a nationalized bank.

Summary

Rupesh Manohar Pawar applied to withdraw Rs.70,29,998 deposited by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. following an 80% disability caused by amputation of his left leg, which he claims has destroyed his earning capacity. The insurance company contested the quantum, arguing that the amount, including Rs.15,00,000 for future medical expenses and a prosthetic leg, was unreasonable and lacked a rational basis. Both parties raised issues concerning the calculation of disability compensation and the appropriateness of the sum awarded. The Court observed that the disability was indeed about 80% and that the applicant had recurring medical expenses. It consequently permitted the applicant to receive 60% of the deposited amount with accrued interest, subject to an undertaking, and ordered the balance to be invested in a nationalized bank.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate quantum of compensation for an 80% disability caused by leg amputation?
Whether the amount claimed for future medical expenses and prosthetic limb is reasonable and justified?
Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim withdrawal of the deposited sum pending final determination?

Subjects

disability compensation
insurance claim
interim relief
future medical expenses
prosthetic limb
partial award
interest

Judgment

                                                      32-FA-164-2026 (C).doc




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1340 OF 2026
                                     IN
                        FIRST APPEAL NO. 164 OF 2026

Rupesh Manohar Pawar                                                ...Applicant

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.                          ...Org. Appellant
      Versus
Rupesh Manohar Pawar & Ors.                                   ...Respondents

                                …..
Adv. Kuldeep Nikam a/w Adv. Onkar Bajaj, Advocate for Applicant.
Adv. Aditya Ghadge h/f Adv. Akshay Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent
No.1- Insurance Company.
Adv. D. D. Rananaware, for Respondent No.2.
                                …..


                                      CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                                      DATE     : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

P.C. :

           Heard.

2.         By this application, the applicant seeks to withdraw an amount of

Rs.70,29,998/- deposited by the respondent - Insurance Company.

3.         It is submitted by Mr. Nikam, the learned counsel appearing for

the applicant that the left leg of the applicant has been amputated

causing 80% disability. His entire earning capacity is effected. He has



     ZIP                                                                1 of 2
                                                       32-FA-164-2026 (C).doc


responsibility and at the young age he is incapacitated.

4.         The application is contested by Advocate Mr. Ghadge, appearing

for the respondent-Insurance Company. It is submitted that the

quantum is exorbitant and unreasonable. No rationale is applied for

awarding Rs.15,00,000/- for future medical expenses and prosthetic

leg. The notional income of the applicant is also vulnerable.

5.         Both sides have raised contentious issues which are required to

be dealt with in the final hearing of the appeal. Undisputedly, left leg

from knee of the applicant has been amputated. There is reason to

believe that the disability is 80%. The applicant has recurring medical

expenses and he is using prosthetic leg. Considering the rival

submissions of the of the parties, I find that the ends of justice would be

met in permitting the applicant to receive 60% of the amount with

accrued interest. Hence, I pass the following order :


                                    ::ORDER::


A.         Interim Application is partly allowed, permitting the applicant to

receive 60% of amount with accrued interest on furnishing undertaking

to the satisfaction of Presiding Officer of the jurisdictional Tribunal.

B.         Balance amount shall be invested in nationalized bank.



                                                 [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]




     ZIP                                                                 2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…