Bombay High Court
Alka Kisan Padwal And Ors vs Sanjay Bahadur Yadav And Anr on 7 August, 2025
Author: Shivkumar Dige
Bench: Shivkumar Dige
2025:BHC-AS:35170
Shubhada S Kadam 26-FA-793-2012.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 793 of 2012
1 Alka Kisan Padawal,
Age : 40 Years, Occ : Agri and Housewife.
2 Bababai Deoram Padwal,
(deleted as per order below Exh.19/A.
3 Lankesha Kisan Padwal
Age : 25 years, Occ : Nil.
4 Ankusha Kisan Padwal,
Age 21 Years, Occ : Nil.
5 Mayur Kisan Padwal,
Age : 19, Occ.: Nil ....Appellants
All R/at -Mhalunge Padwal, (Orig.Applicants)
Taluka Ambegaon Dist. Pune.
Versus
1 Sanjay Bahadur Yadav,
Age : Adult, Occ: Business/Transport,
M/s. Sanjay Roadways,
D-78, Transport Nagar,
Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh.
2 The National Insurance Co. Ltd., ...Respondents
having its Divisional Office at (Original
M.G. Road, Pune-411 001. Opponents)
Mr. D. D. Shinde, Advocate for the Appellants.
Ms. Harshada Rane along with Mr. Sanjay Krishnan and Ms. Pranali
Girase, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 7th AUGUST, 2025.
SHUBHADA Judgment :
SHANKAR
KADAM 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants for
Digitally signed by enhancement of compensation.
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR KADAM
Date: 2025.08.14
12:56:35 +0530
1/6
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:55 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 26-FA-793-2012.doc
2. It is claimants' case the the deceased was doing business of
wood cutting and he was wood supplier and was earning Rs.15,000/- to
Rs.16,000/- per month but the Tribunal has considered monthly income of
the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month which is on lower side. Learned
counsel further submitted that 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.2-
Insurance Company that no evidence was produced on record to show
that the deceased was doing business of wood cutting. The license of
wood cutting was standing in the name of the father of the deceased. The
Tribunal has considered proper income of the deceased and, on that
basis, impugned judgment and order has been passed, which is legal and
valid, no interference is required in it. Hence, requested to dismiss the
appeal.
4. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the judgment and
order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune, (for short "the
Tribunal").
5. It is claimants' case that the deceased was doing agricultural
work as well as he was in business of saw mill. He was selling woods and
was earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,000/- per month from said business
and Rs.1,50,000/- per annum from agricultural income.
2/6
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:55 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 26-FA-793-2012.doc
6. To prove the income of the deceased, the claimants have
examined claimant No.1-Alka Padwal. She has stated that her husband
was doing business of purchasing and selling various types of woods with
the assistance of proprietor of Prayag Saw Mill, Manchar. Her husband
used to supply woods like babhul neem, bore, pimpal to the said mill. Her
husband was earning an amount of Rs.9000/- to 10,000/- per month from
said business. She has further stated that her husband used to bring
various woods for cutting and after cutting used to sell the wood to various
agriculturists for preparation of agricultural equipments/instruments and
would earn an amount of Rs.5,500/- to Rs.6000/- per month. She has
further stated that the monthly income of her husband was around
Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,000/- per month. She has further stated that her
husband was owner of 3 acre of agricultural land and entire agricultural
land was bagayat. Her husband used to take the crops of groundnut,
onion, potatoes, vegetables etc. and used to transport the said crops to
Manchar Market Yard. He was earning an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to
Rs.3,00,000/- per year and after the expenses, he would earn
Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.1,75,000/- per annum from the agricultural land. In
cross-examination, she has stated that after the death of her husband,
they are not cultivating their agricultural land.
7. To prove the income, the claimants have examined PW2- Mr.
Ramji Patel, proprietor of Prayag Saw Mill, Manchar. He has stated that
3/6
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:55 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 26-FA-793-2012.doc
the deceased used to supply woods of different tress to their mill and he
was getting Rs.9000/- to Rs.10,000/- from the said sale. After his death,
the wood supply has been stopped. In cross-examination, he has stated
that he has not maintained the register regarding payment made to the
deceased.
8. The claimants have examined PW3-Mohan Joshi, Forest
Officer. He has stated that the pass was issued to the deceased for
cutting the woods in forest. In cross-examination, he admitted that the
said pass was in the name of the father of the deceased.
9. The claimants have examined PW4-Bhagwan Kshirsagar,
Assistant Collector of Metrology at District Ahmednagar. He has stated
that on 15th May 1989, saw mill license was issued in the name of the
father of the deceased. It is at Exhibit-86.
10. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has
considered monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. In
my view, it is on lower side. It has come on record that the deceased was
doing wood business as well as he was getting income from the
agricultural land. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW2,
PW3 and PW4 which shows that the deceased was in business of woods.
Considering the evidence on record, I am considering Rs.7,000/- as
monthly income of the deceased.
11. At the time of accident, the deceased was 29 year old. As per
the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co.
4/6
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:55 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 26-FA-793-2012.doc
ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ 2700( SC), the claimants are entitled
for 40% future prospects.
12. The Tribunal has awarded consortium amount on lower side.
There are four 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. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal
expenses, it should be 1/4th as there are four claimants.
14. Considering the above calculations, the claimants are entitled
for following compensation :
Particulars Rs. Amount
Annual Income (Rs.7,000/- x 12) Rs. 84,000.00
40% future prospects Rs. 33,600.00
Total Rs. 1,17,600.00
1/4 deduction towards personal Rs. 29,400.00
expenses
Total Rs. 88,200.00
Rs.88,200/- x 17(multiplier) Rs. 14,99,400.00
Consortium (Rs.48,000/- x 4 (claimants)) Rs. 1,92,000.00
Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000.00
Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000.00
Total Compensation Rs. 17,27,400.00
The Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,16,500/-, if this amount is
deducted from the amount of Rs.17,27,400/- considered by this Court, it
comes to Rs.13,10,900/-. The claimants are entitled for this amount.
5/6
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:55 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 26-FA-793-2012.doc
15. 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.13,10,900/-@ 7.5% interest per annum from the date
of filing claim petition till realisation of the amount. Out of
this amount, Rs.2,28,000/- 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.2-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.
16. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
