Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. ... vs Mangal Arjun Chavan And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 16268 Bom

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 16268 Bom
Judgement Date : 24 November, 2021

Bombay High Court
Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. ... vs Mangal Arjun Chavan And Ors on 24 November, 2021
Bench: R. G. Avachat
                                                                           970-FA-1709-21.odt




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         FIRST APPEAL NO. 1709 OF 2021
                                      AND
                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14266 OF 2019
                                       IN
                         FIRST APPEAL NO. 1709 OF 2021

IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through it's authorised signatory,
Aurangabad                                            ..APPELLANT/APPLICANT
      VERSUS
Mangal Arjun Chavan and Others                        ..RESPONDENTS

                                    ....
Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for appellant/applicant
Mr. R.B. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 5
                                    ....

                                              CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.

DATED : 24th NOVEMBER, 2021

PER COURT :

1. Heard.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated

29th January, 2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Shrirampur in M.A.C.P. No. 144 of 2017. The challenge is mainly on the

ground of involvement of the vehicle and quantum as well.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company would

submit that there is five days' delay in lodging the report of the accident. The

1 / 3

970-FA-1709-21.odt

widow of the deceased was not an eye witness to the accident. Her evidence

is, therefore, of little consequence to make out involvement of the vehicle in

question. On the question of quantum, learned counsel would submit that

the deceased was running an electronic shop in a remote place. However,

there is no concrete evidence to prove his income. The notional income of

Rs.8,000/- per month has, therefore, been on higher side.

4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the

appellant and respondents as well. Perused the evidence on record. Although

the widow of the deceased was not an eye witness to the accident, she

referred in her evidence police papers indicating the involvement of the

vehicle in question. Her evidence in that regard appears to have not been

traverse in her cross examination. On investigation, charge-sheet has been

filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. There is no contra evidence

to disbelieve her claim.

5. On the question of quantum of compensation, it appears that the

learned counsel, who appeared for the appellant - insurance company before

the tribunal gave a concession to assume income at Rs.8,000/- per month.

The tribunal, however, considered it at Rs.9,000/- per month and worked out

the compensation in terms of the Apex Court judgment in the case of

National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC

2 / 3

970-FA-1709-21.odt

680. Perusal of the impugned judgment and award would indicate that each

of the claimants, who are five in number, have not been granted

compensation on the ground of loss of love and affection. The same should

have been granted in terms of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Magma

General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others

reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. As such, even if we consider the claim of the

appellant - insurance company that assumed income is somewhat on higher

side, the respondents - claimants are very much justified in defending the

award, since they have not been granted Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss

of love and affection.

6. As such, the amount of compensation awarded appears to be just

and reasonable one. No case is made out for interference with the impugned

judgment and award. In the result, the appeal fails. Same stands disposed

of. In view of the same, civil application also stands disposed of.

7. The amount in deposit be paid to the respondents - claimants

alongwith interest accrued thereon, immediately.

( R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) SSD

3 / 3

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter