Bombay High Court
S.B.I. General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Pramila Ashok Jadhav And Ors. on 7 August, 2025
Author: Shivkumar Dige
Bench: Shivkumar Dige
2025:BHC-AS:35168
Shubhada S Kadam 202-FA-60-2016-Judgment.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 60 OF 2016
with
CROSS OBJECTION STAMP NO.28127 OF 2018
S.B.I.General Insurance Company ltd. )
289/6-7, Near Loves Hotek, KD Plaza, First )
floor, Nehru Road, Swarget, Bhavani Peth, )
Pune )... Appellant
Versus
1 Smt. Pramila Ashok Jadhav )
Age : 37 yrs., Occ : Housewife )
2 Kum. Swapnil Ashok Jadhav )
Age 17 yrs., Occ : Education )
3 Kum. Ritwik Ashok Jadhav )
Age : 15 yrs., Occ : Education )
4 Shri. Shrirang Soma Jadhav )
Age: 67 yrs., Occ : Agriculturist )
)
As per the Order on Exhibit-32 the Applicant's )
name is removed )
5 Smt. Indubai Shrirang Jadhav )
Age : 60 yrs., Occ : Housewife )
The Applicant No.2 & 3 since minor, Through )
their Guardian Applicant No.1 )
All residing at Gursale, Tal. Malshiras, )
Dist. Solapur )
6 Shri. Dadaso Houshiram Khurange )
Age : Adult, Occ : Business )
R/o. Rajpuri, Taluka : Phaltan, District : )
Satara )
7 Shri. Dattu Lalaso Malve )
Age : Adult, Occ : Driver )
All residing at Rajuri, Tal. Phaltan, )
Dist. Satara )... Respondents
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR
KADAM Mr. Nikhil Mehta i/b. KMC Legal Venture, Advocates for the Appellant-
Digitally signed by Insurance Company.
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR KADAM Mr. Sharad Bhosale i/b. Mr. Dilip Bodake, Advocate for Respondent Nos.
Date: 2025.08.14 2 and 3.
12:56:34 +0530
1/7
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:54 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 202-FA-60-2016-Judgment.doc
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 7th AUGUST, 2025.
Judgment :
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company
against the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Satara (for short "the Tribunal").The respondents/claimants have
also filed cross-objection for enhancement of compensation. As both
appeal and cross-objection are against the same judgment and order, I
am deciding it by this common judgment.
2. It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance
Company that the Tribunal has considered monthly income of the
deceased on higher side without any evidence on record. Learned
counsel further submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle was not
holding valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident.
Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded
consortium amount on higher side, hence, requested to allow the appeal.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants that the Tribunal has considered monthly income
of the deceased on lower side. The deceased was earning more than
Rs.15,000/- per month but the Tribunal has considered monthly income of
the deceased at Rs.10,000/- which is on lower side. Learned counsel
further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded future prospects,
2/7
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:54 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 202-FA-60-2016-Judgment.doc
consortium amount is awarded on lower side and requested to allow the
cross-objection and dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
4. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the judgment and
order passed by the Tribunal.
5. To prove the defense that at the time of the accident, the driver
of the offending vehicle was not holding effective and valid driving license,
no evidence is produced on record by the appellant-Insurance Company.
Hence, I do not find merit in it.
6. It is the claimants' case that the deceased was agriculturist and
he was getting Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- from agricultural income
and deceased was getting income of Rs.15,000/- per month from milk
business. To prove the income of the deceased, the claimants have
examined claimant No.1-Pramila Jadhav. She has stated that the
deceased was doing agricultural work and he was getting annual income
of around Rs.1,50,000/-. She has further stated that the deceased was
doing milk business and was getting Rs.15,000/- per month from it. In
cross examination, she has admitted that the agricultural land is standing
in her name.
7. To prove the income, the claimants have examined PW2-Mr.
Pravin Raute. He has stated that he was doing business of sugarcane
crushing and producing jaggery and he would sell jaggery to the firm of
Ms/.Gautamchand Nemchand Gandhi. He has further stated that the
deceased was supplying sugarcane to him. In the year 2012-2013, the
3/7
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:54 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 202-FA-60-2016-Judgment.doc
deceased had supplied sugarcane to him of around Rs.1,00,000/- and he
had paid the said amount to him. In cross-examination, he has stated that
he has no documents to show that the deceased had supplied sugarcane
to him. The claimants have examined PW2-Shri. Amol Mane, Secretary of
Jaisinh Mohite Patil Milk Commercial Co-operative Society. He has stated
that the deceased would supply milk to their dairy and he would get
Rs.4700/- to Rs.7000/- for 15 days. He has produced extract of Register
of their dairy before the Court. It is at Exhibit-49. He has stated that after
the death of deceased, milk is not supplied to their dairy. In cross-
examination, he has stated that the deceased was having 4-5 cows. He
further admitted that in the payment register (Exhibit-49), there is no
signature of any of the members to show that he received payment of milk
from the society.
8. The claimants have examined PW4-Santosh Jadhav,
Accountant in M/s. Gautam Chand Gandhi Firm. He has stated that from
1st April 2011 to 31st March 2012 (Exhibit-55), the deceased had supplied
jaggery of Rs.1,13,455/- and they have paid the said amount to him. In
cross-examination, he has stated that the said payment was made in
cash.
9. While dealing with the issue of income of the deceased, the
Tribunal has observed that after the death of the deceased, the income
from the agricultural land and milk is continued. On that basis, the
Tribunal has considered monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-
4/7
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:54 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 202-FA-60-2016-Judgment.doc
per month. In my view, it is on lower side. It has come in the evidence of
PW3 that after the death of the deceased, the milk supply to their dairy
has stopped. It means that the family members of the deceased have
sold the cows. Considering the evidence on record, I am considering
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- per month.
10. 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
40% future prospects.
11. The proper multiplier is 15, hence, I am considering it.
12. The Tribunal has awarded consortium amount on lower side.
There are five claimants. 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.
13. Considering the above calculations, the claimants are entitled
for following compensation :
Particulars Rs. Amount
Annual Income (Rs.11,000/- x 12) Rs. 1,32,000.00
40% future prospects Rs. 52,800.00
Total Rs. 1,84,800.00
1/3rd deduction towards personal Rs. 61,600.00
expenses
Total Rs. 1,23,200.00
Rs.1,23,200/- x 15(multiplier) Rs. 18,48,000.00
5/7
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:54 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 202-FA-60-2016-Judgment.doc
Consortium (Rs.48,000/- x 5 (claimants) Rs. 2,40,000.00
Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000.00
Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000.00
Total Compensation Rs. 21,24,000.00
The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,77,500/-, if this amount is
deducted from the amount of Rs.21,24,000/- considered by this Court, it
comes to Rs.5,46,500/-. The claimants are entitled for this amount.
13. In view of above, I pass the following order :
ORDER
(1) First Appeal No.60 of 2016 is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(2) Cross Objection Stamp No.28127 OF 2018 is allowed.
(3) The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of
Rs.5,46,500/- @ 7.5% interest per annum from the date
of filing claim petition till realisation of the amount.
(4) Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount
along with accrued interest thereon within six weeks from
the receipt of this order.
(5) The claimants are permitted to withdraw the enhanced
amount along with accrued interest thereon.
(6) The statutory amount in First Appeal No.60 of 2016 be
transmitted to the Tribunal along with accrued interest
Shubhada S Kadam 202-FA-60-2016-Judgment.doc
thereon. The parties are at liberty to withdraw it as per
Rule.
(7) The claimants shall pay deficit court fees on enhanced
amount, if any, as per Rule.
(8) Record and Proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal.
14. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
