High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
FA-1988-2020-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 1988 OF 2020Future Generali General Insurance Company Ltd.,Block No. A, Ist Floor, Heritage House No. 6,Ramabai Ambedkar Road,Near Sohrab Hall, Pune.District Pune 411 001.Through its ManagerR/o : C/o Future Generali GeneralInsurance Company Ltd.,Elphinstone Road, Mumbai…Appellant (Orig. Res. No.3) Versus1]Smt. Sangita w/o Dhondiram PawarAge 35 years, Occu. Household,2]Sujata d/o. Dhondiram PawarAge 11 years, Occu. Education3]Amrata d/o Dhondiram PawarAge 9 years, Occu. Education4]Shivam s/o Dhondiram PawarAge 3 years, Occu. NilRespondent No.2 to 4 are minorsUnder guardianship of theirnatural mother Respondent No.1All R/o. Sai, Tq. & Dist. Latur.… (Ori. Claimants)5]Pandurang s/o. Harihar Chavan,Age Major, Occu. Driver,R/o. Nagangaon, Post VassaTq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani(Driver of Truck No. MH12/EQ0504)… (Ori. R. No.1)6]Mr. Atul s/o Kantilal Dhoot,Age 45 years, Occu. Business, FA-1988-2020-2- R/o. 470/71 Shukrawar Peth N,Gulmohar Apartment,Flat No. 7/7/8, Subhash Nagar LaneNo.1 Pune, Dist Pune 411 001.… Ori. Resp. No.2(owner of Truck No. MH 12/EQ 0504) … Respondents…..Mr. S. S. Patil, Advocate for the AppellantMr. R. B. Deshpande for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4Mr. T. C. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6….. CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on :23 SEPTEMBER 2025 Pronounced on : 30 SEPTEMBER 2025 JUDGMENT :- 1.Instant First Appeal by Insurance company hereby takesexception to the judgment and award dated 12.12.2019 passed bylearned Member, M.A.C.T., Latur in M.A.C.P. No. 270 of 2017.FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE INSTANT APPEAL ARE AS UNDER :2.Present respondent nos. 1 to 4 filed above claim in the capacityof LRs of deceased Dhondiram, setting up a case that on 24.08.2017while Dhondiram was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No. MH24/R-8223, he was given dash by truck bearing No. MH 12/EQ-0504from backside. Dhondiram expired on the spot and crime wasregistered against the truck driver. Further case was set up that at thetime of death, Dhondiram was working in Akshay Fertilizer as a FA-1988-2020-3- Manager and was earning salary of Rs.12,000/- per month and alsoreceived additional bhatta to the tune of Rs.100/- per day. Dhondiramwas the sole bread earner of the family and on account of hisaccidental death, claimants have lost their sole source of earning andunder various heads, they set up a claim of compensation ofRs.33,12,600/-. Their specific case was that respondent nos. 1, 2 and3 i.e. driver, owner and insurer of the truck are liable to pay thecompensation. 3.Learned Tribunal issued notice and permitted parties to adduceevidence and after appreciating the same, partly allowed it bydirecting respondents to jointly and severely pay compensation to thetune of Rs.24,58,000/- with 9% rate of interest.Feeling aggrieved by the above, insurance company-originalrespondent no.3 has preferred instant Appeal on various groundsmentioned in the appeal memo.4.Heard. Perused the record and impugned judgment. Sum andsubstance of the argument made by learned counsel for the insurancecompany is that, insurance company is taking exception only to thequantum of compensation. He pointed out that, claimants set up a FA-1988-2020-4- case about deceased Dhondiram to be working as Manager andearning Rs.12,000/- per month by way of salary and allegedlyexamined witness Sampat (CW-2) as well as produced Income TaxReturns. However, according to him, there is no positive and legallyacceptable evidence that deceased Dhondiram alone earnedRs.12,000/- salary per month and moreover, deceased is notdemonstrated to be even in permanent employment. He pointed outthat, income tax returns placed on record does not clearly specifyabout above salary quoted by respondents-original claimants. That,there were two employees including deceased Dhondiram andtherefore, if at all quantum of salary is reflected in the income taxreturns, each of the employee could have earned only Rs.5,000/-each. According to him, learned tribunal has failed to consider thisaspect and has considered salary to the tune of Rs.10,000/- andadditional amount. He further took exception to the computationdone by tribunal regarding deduction towards personal expenses andtook this court through the calculations reflected in the impugnedjudgment in para 13 and 14. However, he fairly conceded thattribunal has failed to grant compensation @ 50% increase towardsfuture prospects which the claimants were entitled to as per the lawlaid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethiand Others 2017 (6) BomCR 791/AIR 2017 SC 5157.
Legal Reasoning
FA-1988-2020-5- 5.In answer to above, learned counsel for original claimantspointed out that claimants had proved salary income of deceased byexamining witness CW2 Sampat. He also submitted that, salarycertificate was placed on record and it is got proved and exhibited atExhibit 48. According to him, there is no effective cross on the pointof payment of Income Tax or its Returns. He also justifies thecomputation and would submit that, calculations are correct and it isinclusive of personal expenses of deceased while deducting theentitlement of compensation. For above reasons, he urges to considerfuture prospects and dismiss the appeal filed by insurance company.He seeks reliance on judgment of this Court in Sushila wd/o SubhashMendhe & Anr v. National Insurance Company Limited & Othersreported in 2019 (1) All MR 658 and Jaya Biswal & Others v. BranchManager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. 2016ALL SCR 657 for consideration of salary income.6.After considering the above submissions and on going throughthe evidence as well as impugned judgment, there does not seem tobe any dispute in this Appeal regarding negligence. As regards toquantum is concerned, according to insurance company, there was nolegally acceptable evidence about salary for above reasons. FA-1988-2020-6- 7.Perused the evidence, more particularly of CW2 Sampat, as heis the witness on the point of income of deceased. Through thiswitness, Exhibit 48 is proved. Therefore, the same needs to beconsidered when particularly witness has been examined on the pointof income. There is no reason to not to consider his evidence to accept theclaim about deceased earning Rs.12,000/- per month. There is noevidence about payment of additional amount or Bhatta.8.Calculations and computations from paragraphs 12 to 14 arere-visited and re-assessed. Learned Tribunal has considered monthlysalary as Rs.12,000/- and after deducting 1/4th amount from it (i.e.12,000 – 3000 = 9000) towards personal expenses, added 40%towards future prospects (i.e. 9000 + 3600 = 12,600). As pointedout by learned counsel, learned Tribunal has failed to award additionof 50% amount, in stead of 40%, entitled under future prospects asper the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) and hence the samedeserves to be granted.
Decision
FA-1988-2020-7- 9.In view of the above discussion, in the considered opinion ofthis Court, the respondents-claimants are entitled for followingcompensation :Sr.No.HeadsAmount (Rs.)1Monthly Income (as computed by the Tribunal) Rs.12,000/-2After 1/4th deduction towards personalexpenses(as computed by the Tribunal)Rs.9,000/-3After addition of 50% towards futureprospects (9000 + 4500)Rs.13,500/-4.Annual income (13,500 X 12) 1,62,000/-3Multiplier of 15 (1,62,000 X 15)Rs.24,30,000/-5Non-pecuniary Loses :-Loss of Estate = Rs.15,000/-(as awarded by Tribunal)Funeral Expenses = Rs.15,000/-(as awarded by Tribunal)Loss of consortium = Rs.1,60,000/-(as awarded by Tribunal)Rs.1,90,000/-6Total compensation to be paid(i.e. 24,30,000 + 1,90,000)Rs.26,20,000/-7Compensation awarded by the TribunalRs.24,58,000/-8Total Enhanced Compensation(26,20,000 – 24,58,000)Rs.1,62,000/- FA-1988-2020-8- 10.In the result, following order is passed :ORDERI.The First Appeal, which is at the instance of the InsuranceCompany, is hereby dismissed.II.The impugned judgment and award dated 12.12.2019, passedby the Adhoc DJ-1 and Ex-officio Member of MACT, Latur inM.A.C.P. No. 270 of 2017 is modified.III.The appellant Insurance Company to pay enhancedcompensation of Rs.1,62,000/- to the claimants within 12weeks from today along with interest @ 6% per annum fromthe date of registration of claim petition till its realization.IV.Modified award be prepared accordingly.V.Claimants to pay court fees on the enhanced compensation asper rules.VI.On deposit of the amount by the Insurance Company, claimantsare permitted to withdraw the same. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]vre