Bombay High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Smt. Madhavi Gundu Gavade And Ors on 28 April, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:22028
Manoj 11-FA-905-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.905 OF 2022
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Office : Kalpataru Prime,
1st floor, Unit No. D-3, Road No.16,
Wagale Estate, Thane (W),
(Insurer of Bus bearing No.KAo1-AF-9506) ...Appellant
Vs.
1. Smt. Madhavi Gundu Gavade,
Age about 40 years, occ: Housewife,
(Wife of the Deceased)
2. Kumari Akanksha Gundu Gavade
Age: 17 years, Occ: Education
3. Kumari Arpita Gundu Gavade
Age: 14 years, Occ: Education
(Application No.1 for self and being mother
and natural guardian of minor
Applicant Nos.2 and 3)
4. Smt. Bagubai Tukaram Gawade
Age about 64 years, Occ: Housewife,
all R/at Anand Rahiwashi Chawl,
Old Agra Road, Near Kolhapure GYM,
Gokul Nagar, Thane (W).
5. M/s. S.R.S. Travels,
Prop, K. T. Rajashekhara,
At-No.321/3, TSP Road,
Kalasipalyam, Bangalore,
Karnataka - 560002.
(Owner of the bus
bearing No.KA01-AF-9506) ...Respondents
1/8
::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2025 03:18:08 :::
Manoj 11-FA-905-2022.doc
Ms. Nidhi Shah a/w Ms. Kalpana R. Trivedi, for the Appellant.
Mr. Tejpal S. Ingale a/w Ms. Priyanka Babar, for the Respondent
Nos.1 to 4.
CORAM : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 28th APRIL, 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
. Present Appeal is directed against the Judgment and
Award dated 10/05/2022, in M.A.C.P. No.1210 of 2019 ("Claim"),
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Thane thereby said
claim filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ("the
Act") was partly allowed and Respondent No.5 and the Appellant
(Original Opponent Nos.1 and 2) held jointly and severally liable to
pay the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 ("Claimants") a sum of Rs.67,80,000/-
as compensation inclusive of 'No Fault Liability Compensation'
alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim till realization of amount.
2) As noted in the Court's Order dated 19/08/2022, the
learned Advocate for the Appellant stated that the challenge in this
Appeal is only to the quantum of the compensation. No statutory
defense was raised, therefore, the notice to Respondent No.5 has been
dispensed with. In view thereof, by Order dated 14/10/2022 leave was
granted to file the Compilation of Documents. Accordingly, Mr.
Manoj 11-FA-905-2022.doc
Ingale, the learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed the
Compilation of Documents. Therefore, learned Advocate for the
parties submitted that the Appeal may be finally heard and disposed.
3) Heard Ms. Shah alongwith Ms. Kalpana Trivedi, the
learned Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Ingale, the learned
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the record.
4) Since the Appeal has challenged only the amount of the
award granted by the Tribunal, it is essential to look into the evidence
as to the occupation and the income of the deceased. In this regard,
the relevant evidence is of Smt. Madhavi Gundu Gavade,
(AW1/Exh.18) and Shashikant Jagan Sangade (AW2/Exh.32).
5) AW1 stated that, at the time of the accident, her husban-
the deceased was doing the business in the name and styled as
M/s.Bhaveshwari Enterprises, at Anand Rahiwashi, Room No.1,
Bhosale Chawal, L.B.S. Road, Gokul Nagar, Thane (W). The income of
the deceased was Rs.5,07,447/- per annum. To support this evidence,
the claimants have relied upon the evidence of AW2. In his evidence
of Affidavit, AW2 stated that, he has been serving as the Income Tax
Inspector, in the Income Tax Department. He stated that as per his
office record, the deceased had filed the income tax return for the
Assessment years of 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and 2019-
2020. He stated that the income tax return (Exhs.34 to 37) are the
Manoj 11-FA-905-2022.doc
verified copies of the income tax returns submitted in respect of the
deceased. The aforesaid oral and documentary evidence did not see
sufficient challenge in the cross-examination.
6) The gross annual income and deduction of the tax as
declared in the I.T. Return (Exhs.34 to 37) has been as under :-
Assessment Year 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020
(Exh.34) (Exh.35) (Exh.36) (Exh.37)
Gross Income Rs.4,65,544/- Rs.4,61,386/- Rs.4,19,985/- Rs.5,07,447/-
Income Tax Rs.4,691/- Rs. NIL Rs.1,334/- Rs.2,595/-
Net annual Rs.4,60,853/- Rs.4,61,386/- Rs.4,18,651/- Rs.5,04,852/-
income
Average income : Rs.4,61,435/- per annum.
: Rs.38,453/- per month.
7) The genuineness and correctness of the contents of the
aforesaid income tax return is not disputed by the Appellant in the
cross-examination of AW2. There is nothing on record indicating
that, said income tax returns are false or fabricated. No doubt, the
gross income declared in the last income tax return was on higher
side compared to the gross annual income of the previous Assessment
Year 2018-2019. Therefore, Ms. Trivedi, the learned Advocate
submitted that average annual income of the said four years may be
considered as the last yearly income of the deceased. In this regard I
noticed that, compared to the gross annual income declared in the
Assessment Years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, the gross annual income
Manoj 11-FA-905-2022.doc
declared in the Assessment Year 2019-2020 was not much on higher
side. Similarly, the gross annual income declared in the Assessment
Years 2019-2020 was not much higher than the gross average annual
yearly income of the four years, as shown in the table above.
Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the income tax return
of the Assessment Year 2019-2020 (Exh.37). To fortify this
Conclusion, it is apt to refer the decision in Nidhi Bhargava & Ors. Vs.
National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Regional Manager 1,
therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 13 and 15 observed
and held as under :-
"13. The Income Tax Return is a legally admissible
document on which the income assessment of the
deceased could be made. This Court in Malarvizhi V
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 228
affirmed that the determination of income must proceed
on the basis of Income Tax Return(s), when available,
being a statutory document. In S Vishnu Ganga Vs
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 182, we opined :
11. ...It is no longer res integra that Income
Tax Returns are reliable evidence to assess the
income of a deceased, reference whereof can
be made to Amrit Bhanu Shali V. National
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 738 [Para
1. 2025 SCC Online 872
Manoj 11-FA-905-2022.doc
17]; Kalpanaraj V. Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation, (2015) 2 SCC 764 [Para 7], and K
Ramya (supra) [Para 14 of 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 1338].'
(emphasis supplied)
15. ...When faced with Returns for different Assessment
Years, it would be upto the Tribunal concerned to adopt
either the average income therefrom or choose an
Assessment Year to rely upon. There is good reason to
leave judicial discretion on the Tribunal to adopt one of
the afore-noted two courses of action, bearing in nature
the social purpose and object behind the Act, which is a
beneficial legislation."
8) Now turning back to the case in hand. The net annual
income of the deceased was Rs.5,04,852/- in the financial year 2018-
2019. Considering the nature of the business, income of the deceased
and that he was aged 43 years, the Tribunal has added 25% of the net
annual income of the deceased towards his future prospects. On such
addition the actual yearly income comes to Rs.6,31,065/-. Since the
dependents were four, the Tribunal deducted Rs.1,57,766/- (1/4 th)
towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and
quantified the yearly loss of dependency at Rs.4,73,298.75/-.
Applying the multiplier of '14', the actual the loss of the dependency
has been quantified at Rs.66,26,183/-. In addition, the Tribunal
Manoj 11-FA-905-2022.doc
awarded total Rs.33,000/- towards the 'loss of estate' and 'funeral
expenses'. Which is correct because it is in line with the decision in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2. However,
the Tribunal awarded only Rs.30,000/- to each claimant for the loss
of 'spousal', 'parental' and 'filial' consortium respectively. Said award
should have been Rs.44,000/- each, in accordance with the decision
in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alia Chuhru
Ram & ors.3. Looking at the facts of the case, said error is required to
be removed from the record of the case and also in the interest of the
justice. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to receive total
compensation of Rs.68,35,183/-. The rate of the interest granted by
the Tribunal is proper.
9) Conspectus of the above discussion is that, except the
error in respect of the consortium amount, there is no other infirmity
in the impugned Judgment and Award. As a result, the Appeal is
liable to be dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, the award
should be modified.
10) Hence following Order is passed :-
(i) The Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) In the facts, the parties shall bear their own costs.
2. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC).
3. 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC).
Manoj 11-FA-905-2022.doc
(iii) The impugned Judgment and Award dated
10/05/2022, in M.A.C.P. No.1210 of 2019, passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Thane is modified.
(iv) The Appellant and Respondent No.5 shall jointly
and severally pay a sum of Rs.68,35,183/-. (Rs. Sixty
Eighty Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand One Hundred and
Eighty Three only) inclusive of NFL to the Respondent
Nos.1 to 4 along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of
filing of the claim application till realization of said
amount.
(v) The aforesaid amount shall be apportioned, paid
and invested as directed by the Tribunal in the impugned
Award.
11) The Appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
PREETI (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
HEERO
JAYANI
