Bombay High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Mrs. Suvarna Shankar Budar And Ors. on 5 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:115 28-fast-15037-2023-OJ.doc
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 15037 OF 2023
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
4th Floor, Chintamani Avenue,
Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063. ...Appellant
~ versus ~
1. Suvarna Shankar Budar,
Aged about 52 years,
Wife of the deceased
2. Prashant Shankar Budar,
Aged about 29 years,
Son of the deceased
SHEPHALI 3. Nikhil Shankar Budar,
SANJAY
MORMARE Aged about 27 years,
Digitally signed by
Son of the Deceased.
SHEPHALI
SANJAY
MORMARE
Date: 2026.01.06
10:28:45 +0530
All are residing At-Post Asurde
Nirmalwadi, Taluka Chiplun,
District - Ratnagiri,
Presently residing at 63/F/25,
1st Fanaswadi, Sitaram Poddar Marg, ...Respondents
Mumbai 400 002. (Org. Applicants)
4. M/s Sanket Transport LLP,
Office No. 1101, 11th Floor,
Mayuresh Chamber, Plot No. 60,
Sector-V, Thane, Maharashtra,
400 614 ...Respondent
A PPEARANCES
Page 1 of 5
5th January 2026
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:31:59 :::
28-fast-15037-2023-OJ.doc
For the Appellant Mrs Shalini Shankar.
For The Respondents Mr Amol Gatne, i/b Swati Metha.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 5TH JANUARY 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. The learned counsel for the Respondents/Claimants seeks leave to file Vakalatnama within a week from today. Leave granted. Office to accept the same.
2. By consent of both sides the Appeal is heard finally at the stage of admission.
3. This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 takes exception to the Judgment and Award dated 30 th November 2022, passed in MACP No. 475 of 2018, whereby the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 49,19,860/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of registration of the Claim Petition till realisation of the amount.
4. The Appellant/Insurer takes exception to the Judgment and Award essentially on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in not holding that the deceased motorcyclist has contributed in the Page 2 of 5 5th January 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:31:59 ::: 28-fast-15037-2023-OJ.doc occurrence of the accident. It is also contended that the Tribunal has granted excessive compensation without considering the evidence in respect of employment and income of the deceased.
5. Learned Counsel for the Insurer submits that though the evidence was not led by the Insurer to prove any contributory negligence, on the basis of police papers the Tribunal ought to have held that the deceased has contributed to the occurrence of the accident. On the point of quantum, it is her submission that the Tribunal has erred in accepting the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 47,133/- per month and which has resulted into grant of excessive compensation.
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Original Claimants supported the impugned Judgment and Award. It is his submission that even on the basis of police papers it cannot be held that the deceased has contributed to the accident. With regard to the employment and income of the deceased, attention of the Court is drawn to the evidence on record which indicates that the deceased was serving with Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (for short "MSEDCL") and was working as a Senior Technician and was earning Rs.47,133/- per month. It is Page 3 of 5 5th January 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:31:59 ::: 28-fast-15037-2023-OJ.doc his contention that on the basis of the said evidence, the impugned Judgment and Award is justified.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that in the accident in question, the deceased died. It is further not in dispute that he was riding motorcycle bearing No. MH08-M-3214, and a motor container having registration No. MH-43-Y-7377 owned and insured with Original Opponents, dashed to the motorcycle. In the said accident, rider of motorcycle sustained serioius injuries and succumbed thereto. The Insurer though taken defence of contributory negligence, but has failed to lead any independent evidence to substantiate the same. From the police papers also it cannot be held that the deceased has contributed to causing of the accident in any manner whatsoever.
8. On the point of employment and income of the deceased, there is evidence on record to indicate that the deceased was employed as Senior Technician with MSEDCL and was earning Rs.47,133/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly accepted the said evidence and by applying appropriate multiplier and adding future prospects has calculated the amount of compensation, keeping in mind age of deceased.
Page 4 of 5
5th January 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:31:59 ::: 28-fast-15037-2023-OJ.doc
9. Having regard to the aforestated discussion, there is no merit in the Appeal.
10. In view of the above, I pass the following order:
ORDER
(a) The Appeal is dismissed.
(b) The Claimants are permitted to withdraw the deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon.
(c) The statutory amount be transmitted to the Tribunal along with accrued interest thereon. The parties are at liberty to withdraw it as per Rule.
(d) R & P be sent back to the Tribunal.
11. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.) { Page 5 of 5 5th January 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:31:59 :::