Bombay High Court
Surekha Babasaheb Mane And Another vs Ramrao Waman Mane And Others on 7 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:16228
1 of 4 113-WP.1605.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
113 WRIT PETITION NO. 1605 OF 2019
SUREKHA BABASAHEB MANE AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
RAMRAO WAMAN MANE AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Vilas P. Savant, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Ms. A. N. Tanpure h/f. Mr. Ravindra Vitthal Gore, Advocate for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Mangesh C. Mene, Advocate for Respondent No.6.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 7th APRIL, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. By the present petition, the Petitioners have taken exception to the judgment and award dated 28.09.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalna in MACP No.141 of 2014.
3. Mr. Vilas P. Savant, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, on instructions, submits that Petitioner No.1 is the wife and Petitioner No.2 is the son of deceased Babasaheb Ramrao Mane. He submits that deceased Babasaheb died in an accident on 29.06.2014. However, Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed MACP No.141 of 2014 without impleading the present Petitioners as party opponents. It is further submitted that the said claim petition was subsequently compromised with Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and, on the basis of such compromise, the Tauseef 2 of 4 113-WP.1605.2019 MACP was allowed with an intention to deprive the present Petitioners of the compensation amount.
4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the said act amounts to fraud. He contends that Petitioner No.1, being the second wife, and Petitioner No.2, being the son of the deceased, are entitled to compensation. However, Respondent Nos.1 to 4, by playing fraud, arrived at a compromise and withdrew the entire compensation amount. Therefore, he submits that the compromise is liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, Ms. A. N. Tanpure, learned Advocate holding for Mr. Ravindra Vitthal Gore for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Mr. Mangesh C. Mene, learned Advocate for Respondent No.6, support the impugned award. They submit that at the time of filing MACP No.141 of 2014, the present Petitioners were not parties to the proceedings. It is further submitted that the Petitioners did not file any application seeking their impleadment. The claim petition was duly settled and the compensation amount was withdrawn by the parties to the proceedings.
6. In support of their contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Saroja Vs. Parvathy & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 17410 , to contend that dependency is a relevant criterion for awarding compensation and mere legal status Tauseef 3 of 4 113-WP.1605.2019 is not sufficient to sustain a claim. It is submitted that the Petitioners were neither residing with nor dependent upon the deceased Babasaheb and, therefore, were not impleaded as parties to the claim petition. It is further submitted that though the claim petition was filed in the year 2014 and the compromise was recorded and award passed on 28.09.2015, the Petitioners initiated proceedings for heirship certificate only thereafter. The heirship certificate was ultimately issued on 20.03.2020 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Georai under the Bombay Regulation Act, 1827. Hence, it is contended that the Petitioners were not dependents and the compromise cannot be faulted.
7. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it is an admitted position that the present Petitioners were not parties to the claim petition filed in the year 2014. The matter was settled between the parties and an award came to be passed on 28.09.2015 on the basis of such compromise. The heirship certificate in favour of the Petitioners was issued subsequently on 20.03.2020. The primary contention of the Petitioners is that, being legal heirs, the compromise was arrived at behind their back. However, the petition does not contain any specific averment demonstrating that the Petitioners were dependent upon the deceased at the time of the accident.
Tauseef 4 of 4 113-WP.1605.2019
8. On the contrary, the record indicates that the accident occurred on 29.06.2014, in which the deceased Babasaheb and his wife Meera died. Thereafter, the claim petition was filed by the legal heirs who were on record. It further appears that the Petitioners have instituted Regular Civil Suit No.208 of 2017 for partition, which is pending. Although the Petitioners have been declared legal heirs by virtue of the heirship certificate, they have failed to establish that they were dependents of the deceased. In the absence of such material, no element of fraud can be attributed to the compromise arrived at between the parties.
9. In view of the above, the Petitioners have failed to make out a case for interference with the impugned judgment and award dated 28.09.2015.
10. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef