1 974-ca-5179-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5179 OF 2025 IN FA/515/2025 (WITHDRAWAL) Shaikh Ibrahim Shaikh Ismail VERSUS Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd And Ors ... Mr. Shaikh Kayyum Najir, Advocate for Applicant Mr. M. R. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent no.1 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2712 OF 2025 IN FA/515/2025 (STAY) ….. CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR. DATED : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2025 ORDER :- CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5179 OF 2025 IN FA/515/2025 . Present Civil Application is filed by the claimant for withdrawal of the award amount deposited by the appellant/Insurance Company. It so happened that on the early morning at 02:30 am of 07.02.2017, on Aurangabad- Ahmednagar road, one container of which registration number could not be traced for proceeding ahead followed by another truck bearing registration no.NL-02-Q-3332, which was followed by a metador, bearing registration No.MH-06- AC-1891. Suddenly, the first vehicle applied the brakes and 2025:BHC-AUG:25383 2 974-ca-5179-2025 stopped while in speed, resultantly, the second truck/container and the third i.e. metador applied brakes. The claimant i.e. applicant happened to be cleaner in the third vehicle i.e. metador, which is insured with present appellant/Insurance Company. 2. Crime of the accident was registered against the first vehicle, which was remained untraced. However, the applicant lodged his injury claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the driver, owners and insurers of both the vehicles i.e. container bearing Registration No.NL-02- Q-3332 and metador, bearing registration No.MH-06-AC- 1891, in which the claimant was travelling. 3. Upon hearing the parties and going through the evidence, learned Member of the Maharashtra Accident Claims Tribunal observed that it was the only metador driver, who was responsible for the accident. Learned Tribunal further recorded its findings that it was a case to be dealt under the principles of composite negligence. Unfortunately, the claimant sustained amputation of left hand and right leg resulted into hundred percent disability. At the conclusion, learned Tribunal assessed the entitlement of the claimant as 3 974-ca-5179-2025 Rs.27,66,800/- only to be recoverable from the owner of the metador i.e. respondent no.2 in the original proceeding. The learned Tribunal directed the appellant to first compensate the claimant with liberty to recover the same from the metador owner. 4. As against the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellant/Insurance Company is in appeal. 5. This is an application for withdrawal of the awarded amount deposited by the Insurance Company in this Court. It is submitted by Mr. M. R. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the appellant that appellant has deposited the entire amount in this Court. 6. Mr. Shaikh Kayyum Najir, learned Advocate for the applicants submits that it is a clear case of hundred percent disability and that his entitlement as held by the learned Tribunal is well explained in the judgment itself. With this, he seeks withdrawal of the award amount. 7. Mr. M. R. Deshmukh, learned Advocate per contra vehemently opposes the Civil Application contending that in no event, once having applied the principle of composite 4 974-ca-5179-2025 negligence, the learned Tribunal was justified in exonerating the other vehicle that was involved in the accident. He would further submit that it was even surprising that since the offense itself was registered against the unknown vehicle, yet no other party would have been held responsible for causing the accident. With this he prays to reject the application. 8. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties before me, I find that entitlement to the grant of quantum by the learned Tribunal is not disputed by anybody. It is a clear case wherein a young man at the age of 25 years has lost his left hand and right leg, meaning thereby, he is hundred percent disabled in all senses. The only issue remains as to the liability to be shared in between the owners and insurers of both the vehicles. 9. Mr. M. R. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the appellant would fairly submit that the cause of this appeal would survive until the liability interse both the vehicles is decided. 10. I also find that even otherwise, the interest of appellant/Insurance Company is protected by the clause 3 of the judgment and order impugned in the appeal. Hence, I pass 5 974-ca-5179-2025 following order: ORDER a. Civil Application stands partly allowed. b. The applicant is at liberty to withdraw Rs.30,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty lakhs only) together with proportionate interest accrued thereupon by furnishing usual undertaking to the satisfaction of Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. c. Rest of the amount be deposited in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank. d. Civil Application is disposed of. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2712 OF 2025 IN FA/515/2025 (STAY) . In view of the fact that the appellant has deposited entire payable award amount together with accrued interest well within time, the stay granted earlier is made absolute. 2. Civil Application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ and disposed of. FIRST APPEAL NO.515 OF 2025 . Notice be re-issued to respondent nos.3 to 5, returnable on 14.10.2025. 6 974-ca-5179-2025 2. The matter be listed after service of notice is complete. In the meantime, applicant/appellant shall take recourse to the provisions enumerated in Chapter II of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, corresponding to the stage and requirement of matter. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) Rushikesh/2025