0

EXONERATION OF INSURANCE COMPANY: A MATTER OF COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY-BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Blog , ,

INTRODUCTION:

The High Court of Bombay passed a judgement on 18 April 2023. In the case of SUBHASH WAMAN BAVISKAR AND ORS Vs ADINATH HAMBIRRAO BUDHWANT AND ANR IN FIRST APPEAL NO.410 OF 2016 which was passed by a single bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. DIGE, the issue of exoneration of an insurance company from paying compensation was deliberated upon. The case revolved around the breach of terms and conditions of an insurance policy, specifically regarding the validity of the driver’s license at the time of the accident. The judgment explored the contentions of both the appellant and the respondent, ultimately shedding light on the question of whether the claimants had the right to challenge the tribunal’s decision regarding the exoneration of the insurance company.

BACKGROUND:

The incident in question occurred on November 23, 2011, when the deceased, Asha Baviskar, was traveling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle. A truck, traveling at high speed, attempted to overtake the motorcycle and collided with it. Asha suffered severe injuries and tragically passed away before receiving medical treatment. The offending truck driver was charged with the offense.

The Insurance Company’s defense centered on the argument that the driver of the truck did not possess a valid and effective driver’s license at the time of the accident. The tribunal noted that the driver’s license had expired four months before the accident, and no application for renewal had been made within the stipulated period.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

The appellant’s counsel argued that the tribunal’s observation regarding the breach of the insurance policy’s terms and conditions was incorrect and requested the court to allow the appeal. They contended that the insurance company should be held liable to indemnify the claimants.

In contrast, the respondent’s counsel, representing the insurance company, asserted that the claimants were not the aggrieved party in this matter. They argued that the claimants were entitled to compensation for the accident, irrespective of the source of payment. The counsel further emphasized that it was within the tribunal’s purview to determine the party responsible for providing compensation in cases involving a breach of insurance policy terms.

COURT’S ANALYSIS:

Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented, the court examined the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V. Act). Section 173 of the M.V. Act stipulates that any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal can file an appeal within ninety days from the date of the award. The court acknowledged that this section does not define the term “aggrieved person” and upheld the appellants’ right to challenge the tribunal’s decision.

The court further emphasized that although the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid license at the time of the accident, it did not necessarily imply a lack of driving skill. It stated that as per settled legal principles, if the driver of an offending vehicle is found to be without a valid license, the insurance company must initially pay the compensation and subsequently recover it from the vehicle owner. The court noted that the tribunal had overlooked this aspect when passing its order.

To strengthen its reasoning, the court cited two relevant cases. One of them is Balu Krishna Chavan v. The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., which likely provided insights into compensation entitlement and the rights of claimants regarding insurance companies. The court also mentioned Biju R. & Ors. v. Vivekanandan and Ors., which likely presented legal principles supporting the rights of claimants to challenge tribunal decisions. The court distinguished these cases based on the differing facts and circumstances, supporting its conclusion.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, the court allowed the appeal, asserting that any aggrieved person has the right to file an appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act. It directed the insurance company to pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal, along with accrued interest, within six weeks. The court clarified that the insurance company could subsequently recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. Additionally, the claimants were permitted to withdraw the deposited amount, and all pending civil applications were disposed of.

This judgment clarifies the rights of claimants and underscores the insurance company’s responsibility to indemnify compensation even in cases where the driver of an offending vehicle does not possess a valid license. It highlights the importance of upholding contractual liabilities and ensuring that aggrieved parties have the opportunity to challenge decisions affecting their entitlement to compensation. The court’s references to the Balu Krishna Chavan and Biju R. cases further support the arguments presented, solidifying the legal basis for the decision.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW

click here to view judgement

0

Unexplained Removal from the Waiting List: A Breach of Fairness in Compassionate Appointment

Blog ,

Introduction:

The High Court of Bombay: Nagpur Bench passed a judgement on 03 April 2023. In the case of PORNIMA D/O MOHANSINGH PAWAR Vs ZILLA PARISHAD, GONDIA THR. ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ANR IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6257 OF 2022 which was passed by a division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE R. B. DEO and HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, a provision that allows for the appointment of a dependent family member of a deceased employee, is intended to provide financial support and stability to families during times of tragedy. However, the implementation of this provision can sometimes be marred by administrative errors and unjust actions. In a recent judgment, the court rectified such an injustice, restoring hope to an aggrieved petitioner seeking compassionate appointment. This blog post explores the details of the case and the significance of the court’s decision.

Facts of the Case:

Ms. Pornima Mohansingh Pawar, the petitioner, had been on the waiting list for compassionate appointment since 2011. Her father, Mr. Mohansingh Pawar, had been an employee of Zilla Parishad, Gondia, until his untimely demise in 2005. Following her father’s death, Ms. Pawar’s mother, Smt. Premlata Mohansingh Pawar, applied for compassionate appointment and her name was included in the waiting list as per the applicable regulations.

In 2011, Ms. Premlata Mohansingh Pawar requested the authorities to replace her name with that of her daughter, Ms. Pornima Mohansingh Pawar. The request was accepted, and Ms. Pawar’s name was duly added to the waiting list. Over the years, Ms. Pawar’s name appeared on multiple iterations of the waiting list, validating the legitimacy of her claim for compassionate appointment.

However, to the petitioner’s dismay, the waiting list published on June 10, 2021, omitted her name without any prior notice or explanation. Instead, her mother’s name was listed as ineligible due to exceeding the age limit of 45 years. In light of this arbitrary removal, Ms. Pawar approached the court seeking redress.

Judgment:

After considering the submissions made by both parties, the court critically examined the records and relevant government decisions. It was noted that after Ms. Pawar reached the age of majority, her mother had applied to the authorities for the inclusion of Ms. Pawar’s name. The court questioned the respondents’ actions in removing Ms. Pawar’s name from the waiting list and subsequently denying her appointment based on her mother’s eligibility.

The court concluded that the removal of Ms. Pawar’s name without proper explanation and the denial of her appointment on the grounds of her mother’s eligibility were unjust and illegal. Emphasizing the due process followed in including Ms. Pawar’s name on the waiting list, the court held that the respondents’ actions were arbitrary and violated the principles of fairness and equality.

Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the respondent authorities of Zilla Parishad, Gondia, to restore Ms. Pawar’s name in the waiting list dated June 10, 2021, for compassionate appointment. The court further directed the authorities to consider Ms. Pawar’s appointment based on her serial number and educational qualifications.

Conclusion:

The judgment in this case serves as a significant milestone in rectifying an injustice faced by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment. It highlights the importance of adhering to due process, fairness, and equality in the implementation of such provisions. By restoring Ms. Pawar’s name in the waiting list and ordering consideration for appointment, the court not only provides relief to the petitioner but also sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. This judgment reaffirms the principle that individuals deserving of compassionate appointment should not be unjustly deprived of their rightful opportunity for stability and support.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW

click here to view judgement

0

WRIT PETITION FILED FOR DELETION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES UNDER REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 AT ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT DISPOSED OF WITH DIRECTIONS

Blog , ,

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Indireddy Venu Gopal Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

BENCH – THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

WRIT PETITION No. 8983 of 2023

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 13 MAY 2023

INTRODUCTION

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s representation for deletion of the subject properties from the prohibited list of Dappepalli Village, Lakkireddypalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa District has not been considered by the 2nd respondent (The District Collector).

The main provisions followed in this petition is of Registration act, 1908 added through state amendment.

section 22A. Documents registration of which is opposed to public policy —

(1) The State Government may, by notification, in the official Gazette, declare that the registration of any document or class of documents is opposed to public policy.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register any document to which a notification issued under sub-section (1) is applicable.

FACTS

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner purchased the part of the subject land through a registered sale deed dated 22.02.2016 for an extent of Acres 5.00 cents in Survey No.564 of the said village.

He purchased the other portion of the subject land through a registered sale deed dated 28.10.2009 for an extent of Acres 2.19 cents in Survey No.565 and Acre 1.00 cents in Survey No.566 of the said village and since he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

Petitioner approached the respondent authorities for mutation of his name in the revenue records. Then it came to light that the subject land is placed under the prohibited list under the head of dotted land.

Then petitioner made an online application. In pursuance of the same, the 4th respondent submitted a report to the 2nd respondent (The District Collector) dated 11.08.2018 recommending for deletion of the subject property from the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The 3rd respondent (The Revenue Divisional Officer) also submitted a report to the 2nd respondent (The District Collector) dated 22.02.2022 to consider the case of the petitioner. Thereafter, there is no progress in the matter.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents submits that, the 2nd respondent (The District Collector) Committee would decide the issue basing upon the earlier reports submitted by the respondent Nos.3 (The Revenue Divisional Officer) and 4 (The Tahsildar) by following the due procedure.

JUDGEMENT

The court held that the 2nd respondent (The District Collector) Committee shall consider and pass appropriate orders in continuation of the reports submitted by the 4th (The Tahsildar) and 3rd (The Revenue Divisional Officer) respondents dated 11.08.2018 and 22.02.2022 as expeditiously as possible strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of this order. Upon hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner and upon verification of the records and the subject land, the appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

0

CHALLENGING THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE’S ORDER: A VICTORY FOR CASTE VALIDITY RIGHTS

Blog , ,

INTRODUCTION

The High Court of Bombay: Nagpur Bench passed a judgement on 19 April 2023. In the case of DIVYA MUKESH CHAWDA Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPT. MUMBAI AND OTHERS IN WRIT PETITION NO.6971/2022 which was passed by a division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE R. B. DEO and HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE VRUSHALI V. JOSHI the Court reviewed a case where a petitioner challenged the decision of the Scrutiny Committee to invalidate her claim of belonging to the Mochi Scheduled Caste. The petitioner’s claim was based on various documents and a genealogical tree provided to establish her caste identity. The Court carefully examined the evidence and ultimately ruled in favour of the petitioner, emphasizing the committee’s errors in disregarding the presented documents. This blog post will delve into the details of the case, highlighting the key arguments and the Court’s reasoning.

BACKGROUND

The petitioner, a student at Kapadia Gujarati Junior College in Amravati, sought a caste validity certificate to verify her claim as a member of the Mochi Scheduled Caste. After submitting the necessary documents, including validation certificates of her family members, the Vigilance Cell conducted an inquiry and confirmed the authenticity of the provided documents. However, the Scrutiny Committee issued a notice to the petitioner, demanding additional pre-constitution documents and questioning her relationship with one of the validation certificate holders, Shailesh Vallabh Chawada.

THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE’S DECISION

In its decision, the Scrutiny Committee contended that the petitioner failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish her caste identity as Mochi. They reasoned that the petitioner had not submitted any pre-constitution documents, and the committee referred to a judgment by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, which stated that the Mochi caste did not fall under the Scheduled Caste category.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

The petitioner, through her counsel, argued that the Scrutiny Committee erred in discarding the validity certificates of her family members. The counsel emphasized that the High Court’s judgment was irrelevant to the case. It was further asserted that the petitioner had submitted four validity certificates of her cousins, including one of her real cousin brothers, Shailesh Chawada, along with a genealogical tree proving their relationship.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Upon careful examination of the case, the Court noted that the documents submitted by the petitioner, which referred to her caste as Mochi, were not questioned for their authenticity. However, the committee rejected her claim based on the petitioner’s father’s statement that their family originally hailed from Gujarat. According to the committee, the Maharashtra law stipulated that only Mochis from specific districts were declared as Scheduled Caste.

The Court acknowledged that the burden of proving the claim lies with the petitioner, as per the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2000. Nevertheless, the Court found fault with the committee’s approach. The Vigilance Cell’s inquiry had not questioned the petitioner’s relationship with Shailesh, and the Court believed the petitioner should have been given notice to provide additional documentary evidence to establish this relationship.

The Court found merit in the petitioner’s case since her family had settled in Maharashtra well before independence. Notably, a pre-constitution entry in a school admission register referred to the petitioner’s grandfather, Velji Shamji Chawada, as Mochi. The Court held that the committee erred by applying the amended presidential order relevant to Gujarat, rather than considering the pre-constitution evidence from Maharashtra.

In light of these findings, the Court set aside the Scrutiny Committee’s order and granted the petitioner’s prayer for quashing the order and directing the committee to issue her a validity certificate for her caste, Mochi, within one month.

CONCLUSION

This judgment highlights the importance of a fair and meticulous examination of evidence when determining caste validity claims. The Court’s decision recognized the significance of pre-constitution documents and concluded that the Scrutiny Committee had erred in disregarding them. By setting aside the committee’s order, the Court upheld the petitioner’s right to establish her caste identity and receive a validity certificate. This ruling serves as a reminder of the need for careful consideration and adherence to the law in caste validity proceedings.

click here to view judgment

0

NOTHING PREVENTED THE AUTHORITY FROM CANCELLING OR REVOKING THE PERMISSION TO FILL IN THE POST: Bombay High Court

Blog , ,

INTRODUCTION

The High Court of Bombay: Nagpur Bench passed a judgement on 10 March 2023. In the case of ARUN THUTE LOKVIKAS PRATISTHAN HINGANGHAT THR. PRESIDENT SMT. USHAKIRAN A. THUTE AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI AND OTHERS IN WRIT PETITION NO.1648/2022 which was passed by a division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE R. B. DEO and HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE VRUSHALI V. JOSHI the court addressed the issue of the arbitrary rejection of an appointment by the Deputy Director of Education. The case revolved around the appointment of a peon in a school managed by an institution. The rejection was based on the grounds that the appointment was made during a period when there was a ban on recruitment to Class-C and Class-D posts. The court analysed the circumstances and the applicable laws to arrive at a decision.

FACTS

The petitioners, comprising the institution managing the school and the selected candidate for the peon position, sought permission to fill the vacant post. The Deputy Director of Education granted permission to fill the post, and the institution proceeded with the recruitment process. A suitable candidate was selected, and the appointment order was issued. However, later on, the approval for the appointment was rejected by the Deputy Director, citing the ban on recruitment during that period.

THE JUDGMENT

The court examined the grounds of rejection and considered the arguments put forth by both parties. The petitioners contended that the appointment was made after following due procedure, obtaining the necessary permission, and fulfilling all requirements. They highlighted that the appointment was for a clear and permanent vacancy and that the selected candidate belonged to the Other Backward Category.

The Deputy Director, on the other hand, argued that the institution should have stopped the recruitment process even after receiving permission, as the responsibility lay with them. They also mentioned that the previous Deputy Director granted permission without verifying the availability of surplus employees.

The court noted that the rejection of the appointment approval was solely based on the fact that it was made during the period of the recruitment ban. The Deputy Director referred to a government resolution that imposed the ban and subsequent extensions. However, the court found that the recruitment process had already commenced before the imposition of the ban, as evidenced by the permission granted prior to the ban.

The court drew parallels to a similar case decided by a Coordinate Bench and a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the precedent case, the court held that the ban on recruitment would not apply if the process was already initiated by the management. The Apex Court ruled that the ban should not negate the approval already given for filling grant-in-aid posts.

CONCLUSION

After considering the submissions and the applicable legal precedents, the court found the rejection of the appointment approval to be arbitrary. It emphasized that the petitioner had been appointed in a clear and permanent vacancy with permission granted before the ban was imposed. The court noted that the authorities could have cancelled or revoked the permission if necessary. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and directed the Deputy Director to grant approval for the appointment, along with the release of the petitioner’s salary from the date of joining.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to due process and ensuring that decisions are not arbitrary. It serves as a reminder that the imposition of bans on recruitment should not disregard the rights and legitimate expectations of individuals and institutions. The judgment provides clarity on the applicability of bans and the protection of approvals granted before their imposition.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW

click here to view judgment

1 … 22 23 24 25 26 27