Bombay High Court
Smt. Mangala Ashok Telange And Ors. vs Vijay Bapusaheb Deshmukh And Ors. on 7 August, 2025
Author: Shivkumar Dige
Bench: Shivkumar Dige
2025:BHC-AS:35167
Shubhada S Kadam 902-FA-476-2003-Judgment.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 476 OF 2003
1 Smt. Mangala Ashok Talange
Aged 50 years, Occ : Household work,
R/o. 10/79, Shekambhari, Near Nootan
Nagari Coop. Bank Ltd.,
Ichalkaranji, Dist. Kolhapur
2 Sanjay Ashok Talange
Age 30 years, Occ : Edun.
R/o. As above
2A Meera Sanjay Talange
Age 51 years, Occ: Household
2B Kaushik Sanjay Talange
Age 28 years, Occ : Service
2C Ketana Sanjay Talange
Age 24 years, Occ : Service
All R/o. 51/143, Opp. Nutan Bank Layhar
Galli, Ichalkaranji, Dist : Kolhapur 415 115
Amendment carried out in Court as per
Court's order dated 1/8/2025
3 Uday Ashok Talange
Age 28 years, Occu: Edu. Appellants
R/o. As above ... (Orig. Applicants)
V/s.
1 Vijay Bapusaheb Deshmukh
Aged 48 years, Occ : Driver
R/o. Reture Dharan, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli
2 Dadasaheb Dattatraya Patil
Age Adult, Occ : Buss.
R/o. As above
Appeal stand dismissed as against R.No.2 as
per Reg. Order dated 24/12/13.
SHUBHADA 3 United India Insurance Company Limited
SHANKAR Sangli
KADAM 4 Shashikant Namdeo Lad
Age Adult, Occu : Business/Service
Digitally signed by
SHUBHADA R/o. 10th Lane, Rajarampuri, Kolhapur
SHANKAR KADAM
Date: 2025.08.14
Appeal stand abated against deced R.No.4,
12:56:33 +0530 vide RJ's order dtd. 3/10/16.
1/8
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:53 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 902-FA-476-2003-Judgment.doc
5 Balkrishna Kondiba Kumbhar Respondents
Age 46, Occu: Service ... (Orig. Opponents)
R/o. Ganganagar, Tal. Hatkanangale,
Dist : Kolhapur
Mr. R.S. Alange, Advocate for the Appellants-Claimants.
Ms. Urmila Sanil, Advocate for Respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 7th AUGUST, 2025.
Judgment :
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants-claimants for
enhancement of compensation.
2. It is contention of learned counsel for the appellants-claimants
that the deceased was doing construction, fabrication and designing
business and from all these businesses, he would earn Rs.1,00,000/- per
month but the Tribunal has considered his monthly income at Rs.3500/-
per month which is on lower side. Learned counsel further submitted that
witnesses have been examined to prove the income of the deceased.
The Tribunal has not awarded future prospects and consortium amount is
awarded on lower side. Hence, requested to allow the appeal.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for respondent No.3-
Insurance Company that the educational qualification of the deceased
was 11th Fail. No documents were produced on record to show that the
deceased was partner of M/s.A.B.Talange Partners and Company and
the businesses of the deceased are continued even after his death.
2/8
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:53 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 902-FA-476-2003-Judgment.doc
Learned counsel further stated that the income tax returns showing the
income of the deceased as more than Rs.2,00,000/- was filed after the
death of the deceased. No evidence is produced on record to show that
the deceased was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The Tribunal has
passed well reasoned order, no interference is required in it and
requested to dismiss the appeal.
4. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the judgment and
order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solapur, (for short
"the Tribunal").
5. To prove the income of the deceased, the claimants have
examined claimant No.1-Mangala Talange. She has stated that her
husband was doing building contractor work, welding work of machinery
parts and designing of machinery etc. He was carrying his business in the
name of M/s. A. B. Talange. He was also carrying business in partnership
under the name of Sutempt Fabrication. He was also doing work of
designing under the name of Design Collaborators at Kolhapur. At the
time of accident, he was having contract of constructing stadium for
Municipal Council at Icchalkaranji and the said work was going on. The
said contract was worth Rs.3.5 crores. Because of the death of her
husband, the said contract has not been completed. Her husband was
earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Her husband had received certificates
for his good work. The said certificates are at Exhibit-92. In cross-
examination, she has stated that she does not know whether her husband
3/8
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:53 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 902-FA-476-2003-Judgment.doc
had obtained any registration certificate from Government for carrying on
business of the building contract or for doing any other work. She has not
filed copy of partnership deed to show that her husband was carrying
business in partnership. She has stated that her husband has passed
Machine Designing Course. She does not know the details of the same.
She does not know the details about the work given by Icchalkaranji
Municipal Council. She has further stated that after the death of her
husband, her sons are carrying the business but they have suffered
losses.
6. The claimants have examined PW2-Mr. Sanjay Parule, Income
Tax Inspector. He has stated that he has brought the income tax returns
of M/s. A.B.Talange, Icchalkaranji. The income tax returns of the year
1992-1993 shows his income at Rs.12,140/-. The income tax returns for
the year 1993-1994, shows his income at Rs.32,160/-. The income tax
returns for the year 1994-1995 shows his income at Rs.2,01,800/-
(Exhibit-111) and income tax returns for the year 1995-1996, shows loss
of Rs.1,25,000/-. He has stated in cross-examination that he has no
personal knowledge about contents of the documents produced on
record.
7. PW3-Shravan Sonawane, clerk in Building and Construction
Department at Municipal Council. Iccharkarnji, has stated that in the
year 1986, the Municipal Council had decided to construct stadium having
value of Rs.1,70,00,000/- and tenders were called for the same. The said
4/8
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:53 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 902-FA-476-2003-Judgment.doc
contract of construction of stadium was given to M/s. A. B. Talange. After
accepting their tender, a resolution was passed by the Muncipal Council
for the same, it is at Exhibit-114. On 15th September 1993, an application
was filed by the said concern stating that the said concern is not in
position to do further work as the rate of construction has been increased
and a revised estimate was given to M/s. A. B. Talange. It is at Exhibit-
116. In cross-examination, he has stated that M/s. A. B. Talange is still
doing the work of the said contract and 95% work is over and only 5%
has remained.
8. The claimants have examined PW4-Sharad Sabnis, partner of
M/s.Designing Collaborators at Kolhapur. He has stated that his firm does
the job of architecture in respect of building construction. He knows the
firm M/s. A. B. Talange of Icchalkaranji. He also knows about the Sutempt
Fabricators and Erectors of Icchalkaranji. Both these firms were run by
M/s. A. B. Talange. The contract of Sugar factory at Vairag was given to
Ms/ Sutempt Construction and Fabricators through this witness. The said
work was completed by the said concern and the quality of their work was
good, therefore, one certificate was given to him by the Concern for his
good work. In cross-examination, he admitted that he has not produced
any documents to show that he was partner of Ms/.Design Corroborators.
He stated that he does not know educational qualification of Mr. Ashok
Talange.
5/8
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:53 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 902-FA-476-2003-Judgment.doc
9. The claimants have examined PW5-Prakash Tithe, Clerk in
Vithal Sugar Factory at Pandharpur. He has stated that M/s.Sutempt
Construction has done the work of sugar factory for erection and
construction. The said certificate issued by the factory is at Exhibit-132.
10. While dealing with the issue of income of the deceased, the
Tribunal has observed that no documents of partnership firm are
produced on record. The deceased was not civil engineer or not having
degree of engineering. Considering the income tax returns produced on
record as well as income of the claimants continued after the death of the
deceased, on that ground, the Tribunal has considered monthly income of
the deceased at Rs.3500/- per month. I am unable to understand the
observations of the Tribunal. It has come on record that the deceased
was doing construction business and other businesses. PW-3 has
categorically stated that the work of construction of Stadium at
Icchalkaranji was given to the company owned by the deceased. The
said work was of more than Rs.1,00,00,000/-. M/s. A. B. Talange
Company was in the name of the deceased.
11. It is contention of learned counsel for respondent No.3-
Insurance Company that no documents regarding registration of the said
company was produced on record. In my view, PW-2, who is the
employee of Municipal Corporation has stated that the work was given to
the company of the deceased. It cannot be said that the deceased was
not doing the said work, merely because of non-production of documents.
6/8
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:53 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 902-FA-476-2003-Judgment.doc
The deceased was paying income tax returns. He was doing other
businesses. Considering these facts, I am considering Rs.10,000/- as
monthly income of the deceased.
12. The Tribunal has not awarded future prospects. As per the
view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. ltd.
vs. Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ 2700( SC), the claimants are entitled for
25% future prospects.
13. The Tribunal has awarded consortium amount on lower side.
As per the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC), each claimant is entitled
for Rs.48000/- as consortium amount, Rs.18,000/- for loss of estate and
Rs.18000/- for funeral expenses.
14. Considering the above calculations, the claimants are entitled
for following compensation :
Particulars Rs. Amount
Annual Income (Rs.10,000/- x 12) Rs. 1,20,000.00
25% future prospects Rs. 30,000.00
Total Rs. 1,50,000.00
1/3 deduction towards personal Rs. 50,000.00
expenses
Total Rs. 1,00,000.00
Rs.1,00,000/- x 13(multiplier) Rs. 13,00,000.00
Consortium (Rs.48,000/- x 3 (claimants)) Rs. 1,44,000.00
Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000.00
Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000.00
Total Compensation Rs. 14,80,000.00
7/8
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:53 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 902-FA-476-2003-Judgment.doc
The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,75,000/-, if this amount is
deducted from the amount of Rs.14,80,000/- considered by this Court, it
comes to Rs.11,05,000/-. The claimants are entitled for this amount.
6. In view of above, I pass the following order :
ORDER
(1) The appeal is allowed.
(2) The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of
Rs.11,05,000/- @ 7.5% interest per annum from the date
of filing claim petition till realisation of the amount. Out of
this amount, Rs.1,80,000/- is consortium amount, the
claimants are entitled @ 7.5% interest per annum on this
amount from 1st November 2017 till realisation of the
amount.
(3) Respondent No.3-Insurance Company shall deposit the
enhanced amount along with accrued interest thereon
within eight weeks from the receipt of this order.
(4) The claimants are permitted to withdraw the enhanced
amount along with accrued interest thereon.
(5) The claimants shall pay deficit court fees on enhanced
amount, if any, as per Rule.
(6) Record and Proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal.
15. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
