Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

RITESH ASHOK THAKUR AND ORS.versusRELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the plaintiff is entitled to receive 60% of the deposited amount with accrued interest, subject to an undertaking, while the remaining balance is to be invested in a nationalized bank.

Summary

The High Court considered three interim applications arising from a dispute between Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ritesh Ashok Thakur concerning a motor accident that resulted in the loss of the plaintiff’s left leg. The first application sought condonation of delay in filing a first appeal, which the court allowed as the respondent had no objection. The second application, filed by the plaintiff, requested withdrawal of the Rs.66,34,120 deposited by the insurer and a revised award, alleging that the insurer had issued a fake policy; the court found the injury undisputed, noted the insurer’s claim of a fake policy was already addressed, and partially allowed the application by granting the plaintiff 60% of the amount with accrued interest, subject to an undertaking. The third application dealt with procedural notice, which the court ordered to be issued but was subsequently waived by the insurer’s counsel. The court’s reasoning emphasized the seriousness of the plaintiff’s disability, the inadequacy of the insurer’s defence, and the need for interim relief pending the final appeal.

Issues considered

  • The court’s power to condone delay in filing an appeal under procedural law.
  • Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a partial award of the deposited amount despite the insurer’s claim of a fake policy.
  • The appropriateness of granting interim relief of 60% of the amount with interest pending final determination.

Subjects

  • insurance claim
  • fake policy
  • compensation
  • condonation of delay
  • interim relief
  • disability
  • medical expenses
  • interest award

Judgment

                         1                   63-IA-547-2026 (C)

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 547 OF 2026
                              IN
               FIRST APPEAL ST NO. 2612 OF 2026

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.        …...Applicant
      Vs.
Ritesh Ashok Thakur & Ors.                 …...Respondents

                            WITH
             INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 548 OF 2026
                             IN
               FIRST APPEALST NO. 2612 OF 2026

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.        ......Applicant
      Vs.
Ritesh Ashok Thakur & Ors.                 .....Respondents

                            WITH
             INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 976 OF 2026
                             IN
               FIRST APPEAL ST NO. 850 OF 2026

Ritesh Ashok Thakur                        …........Applicant
      Vs.
Vaishali Sunil Kate & Ors.                   ......Respondents

                            WITH
             INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 977 OF 2026
                              IN
               FIRST APPEAL ST NO. 2612 OF 2026

Ritesh Ashok Thakur & Ors.                 .......Applicants
      Vs.
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.        ......Respondent
                          2                         63-IA-547-2026 (C)

                              ...
Mr. Bhushan Walimbe with Mr. Moin Momin, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Aditya Ghadge h/f Mr. Akshay Kulkarni, Advocate for
Respondents/Insurance Company.
                              ...

                   CORAM :     SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                     DATE :    24TH SEPTEMBER, 2026.

ORDER :


INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 547 OF 2026:

.     The Applicant seeks condonation of delay in filing First Appeal

(St.) No.2612 of 2026. For the reasons stated in the Application, the

learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Claimant has no

serious objection to condonation of the delay.

2.    The Application is allowed. The delay stands condoned.


INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 977 OF 2026:


.     Heard both sides.

2.    Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents tenders on

record the reply filed by Respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

3.    The Applicant is seeking withdrawal of the amount of

Rs.66,34,120/- deposited by the Respondent-Insurance Company. It

is submitted that the Applicant was 25 years old at the time of the

accident and lost his left leg. Due to the amputation of the leg, he
                          3                         63-IA-547-2026 (C)

has to take assistance of prosthetic limb, which has recurring medical

expenses. It is submitted that, for enhancement of compensation, the

Applicant has preferred a separate Appeal. The defence of the

Insurance Company regarding the fake insurance policy has been

dealt with. Due to the amputation of the leg, the Applicant’s future

life is spoiled and he has lost his irrepealable.

4.    Mr. Ghadge, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents,

would rely upon the affidavit-in-reply and submit that the offending

vehicle was not insured with the Respondents. The claim has been

made by the Applicant on the basis of a fake policy. The Respondent-

Company approached the police. The quantum fixed by the Tribunal

is exorbitant and unfounded. The amount awarded towards medical

expenses is perverse.

5.    With the assistance of both the learned counsel, I have gone

through the impugned judgment. The plea regarding the fake

insurance policy has already been dealt with by the Tribunal. The

cross-examination of the Legal Manager of the Respondent-Insurance

Company has also been considered by the Tribunal.

6.    Prima facie, the findings cannot be faulted with. The

inordinate delay in lodging the complaint regarding the fake policy
                           4                              63-IA-547-2026 (C)

would operate against the Respondents.

7.       The amputation of the left leg and the injuries sustained in the

accident cannot be disputed. The Applicant’s disability entails

recurring expenses. He is entitled to receive part of the

compensation,      because     the    Appeals   are   likely   to   consume

considerable time, and the other contentious issues can be dealt with

during the course of hearing of the Appeals. I prefer to award an

amount of 60% with accrued interest.

8.       The Application is partly allowed, permitting the Applicant to

receive 60% of the amount along with accrued interest upon

furnishing an undertaking to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer

of the jurisdictional Tribunal. The balance amount shall be invested

in a nationalized bank.

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 976 OF 2026:

.        Issue notice to Respondents, returnable on 22.10.2026.

2.       Mr. Aditya Ghadge, waives notice on behalf of Respondent

No.3



                                     [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]


Suresh


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.