Bombay High Court
DINKAR BHAUSAHEB GANGADHARversusBRANCH MANAGER SBI BANK BRANCH PAITHAN AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court held that there is no case for interference with the Lok Adalat’s order and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, brother of the deceased, claimed an accidental death insurance benefit of Rs.20,00,000 for his sister who died on 21 May 2016 following an alleged accident on 20 May 2016. The claim was filed with the insurer on 29 October 2018 and rejected on 5 May 2019. The petitioner approached the Permanent Lok Adalat, which dismissed the pre‑litigation application on 4 July 2019, finding the accident claim suspicious and noting lack of documentary evidence such as hospital records, police FIR, or medical certificate. The petitioner challenged the Lok Adalat order by filing a writ petition, arguing that the summary jurisdiction of the Legal Services Authorities Act should not preclude a detailed examination of the claim. The High Court examined the evidence, noted the two‑year delay in filing the claim and the absence of any substantive proof of accidental death, and concluded that there was no ground for interference with the Lok Adalat’s order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat rejecting the insurance claim can be set aside by a writ petition.
- Whether the petitioner has produced sufficient evidence to establish that the death was accidental as required by the insurance policy.
- Whether the delay of over two years in filing the claim bars any relief.
- Whether the summary jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act precludes detailed scrutiny of the claim.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- insurance claim
- accidental death
- Lok Adalat
- summary jurisdiction
- delay in filing
- Legal Services Authorities Act
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:45524
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
23 WRIT PETITION NO. 5369 OF 2020
DINKAR BHAUSAHEB GANGADHAR
VERSUS
BRANCH MANAGER SBI BANK BRANCH PAITHAN AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. M.D. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. A.V. Rakh, Advocate for respondent No.1
Mr. N.S. Shah, Advocate h/f Mr. R.H. Dahat, Advocate for respondent No.2
...
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026
ORDER :
. Present petitioner is brother of late Shakuntala Dinesh Gore, who
expired on 21.05.2016. Shakuntala had taken an insurance policy for a sum
assured of Rs.20,00,000/- in case of accidental death. It is the case of
petitioner that Shakuntala had met with an accident at residential house on
20.05.2016, as a consequence of which she expired on 21.05.2016. The
petitioner lodged claim with respondent / insurance company for the first
time on 29.10.2018. The claim was repudiated on 05.05.2019. In this
backdrop of facts the petitioner approached the Permanent Lok Adalat at
2 23_WP_5369_2020
Aurangabad vide Pre-litigation Application Dispute No.27/2019, which is
rejected vide order dated 04.07.2019. The learned Members of the Lok
Adalat have recorded that there was no possibility of amicable settlement in
the matter and the case of accidental death set out by the petitioner appears
to be suspicious. In view of the above, the application was disposed of with
liberty to the petitioner to seek redress before appropriate Forum. The said
order dated 04.07.2019 is subject-matter of challenge in the present petition.
Perusal of the order will demonstrate that the alleged incident is dated
20.05.2016 and the petitioner’s sister died on 21.05.2016. She was
hospitalized at Government Hospital and Training Institute, Aurangabad on
20.05.2016. The treatment papers were not produced on record before Lok
Adalat. The hospital also did not register MLC and also did not refer the
matter to the Police Station. Except a spot panchnama prepared by Police
Patil on 21.05.2026 and death certificate no document was placed on record
to support the theory of accidental death. Members of the Lok Adalat have
recorded that the jurisdiction under the Legal Services Authorities Act is
summary in nature and as such the contention regarding accidental death
could not be accepted. It is not in dispute that policy of insurance covered
only claim on account of accidental death. Having regard to the reasons
recorded in the impugned order, in the considered opinion of this Court, no
case for interference is made out. There is hardly any material to infer that
3 23_WP_5369_2020
the sister of petitioner died due to accident. There is delay of over two years
for lodging claim. The claim is not supported by the cogent documentary
evidence. Rather treatment papers of the hospital, where the deceased was
admitted, are not produced on record. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed.
( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )
agd
Checking your session…