Bombay High Court
Komal Kishor Deshmukh vs Preetpalsingh K Johar Died Thr Lrs ... on 13 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:21942
566-20-FA.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.566 OF 2020
Komal D/o. Kishor Deshmukh,
Age: 24 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o. Dhondipura, Beed. ... Appellant-
insurance (Orig. Claimant)
Versus
1. Mr. Preetpalsingh K. Johar,
Since deceased through his
L.Rs.
1-A. Raminder Kaur Pritpal Singh Johar,
Age: 59 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Plot No.5-1-55, Osmanpura,
Aurangabad.
1-B. Anisha Kaur Pritpal Singh Johar,
Age: 33 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Plot No.5-1-55, Osmanpura,
Aurangabad.
1-C. Amrita Kaur Pritpal Singh Johar,
Age: 28 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Plot No.5-1-55, Osmanpura,
Aurangabad.
1-D. Arjan Singh Pritpal Singh Johar,
Age: 22 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o. Plot No.5-1-55, Osmanpura,
Aurangabad.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through: The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Subhash Road, Beed. ... Respondents
(Orig. respondents)
566-20-FA.odt
{2}
......
Mr. Amol P. Khedkar, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. Suraj R. Bagal, Advocate for Respondent No.2
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 29 JULY, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 13 AUGUST, 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award
dated 26.03.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Udgir, in M.A.C.P. No. 50 of 2011, the
appellant/original claimant has filed the present appeal by
invoking provisions under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Before the Tribunal, the case set up was that, on
03.08.2010, appellant/original claimant was the pillion rider on
a moped. The truck bearing No. MH-20-A-1711, which was
coming from the opposite direction, came to the wrong side and
gave dash to the moped, causing grievous and fracture injuries
to the appellant/original claimant. Because of the rash and
negligent driving, crime was registered against the truck driver.
566-20-FA.odt
{3}
3. The claim petition was filed before the Tribunal seeking
compensation on the ground that, at the time of the accident,
the appellant/original claimant was 17 years old, studying in
12th standard, and preparing for the Common Entrance Test.
That, because of the accident, she had suffered permanent
disability to the extent of 40%, which affected her future
academic career, and she would require further medical
treatment in future. The Tribunal has awarded compensation to
the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/original claimant would
point out that the Tribunal has granted meagre amount. That,
lump sum amount has been granted towards loss of future
income, loss of amenities of life and marriage prospects. He
pointed out that, medical expenses incurred were also not
properly considered. He further pointed out that, the victim was
required to undergo surgery. That, even the Tribunal has
deducted the amount, which was purportedly received by the
father by way of reimbursement from his employer. He pointed
out that, even notional income for student, which is generally
applied, has not been considered and rather, the same ought to
have been considered. Thus, learned counsel takes serious
566-20-FA.odt
{4}
objections to such approach of the Tribunal. He seeks reliance on
S. Vasanthi Vs. M/s. Adhiparasakthi Engg. College, (2022)15
SCC 316 and Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and Others, (2020) 4 SCC
413. On account of non consideration of medical bills, reliance is
also placed on The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Sakinaka,
Mumbai Vs. Mrs. Dolly Satish Gandhi and another, 2025(3)
Mah. L.J. 21.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 resisted the above
claim and, while supporting the award, submitted that the
compensation granted by the Tribunal is just, proper, and in
consonance with the evidence on record. That, the Tribunal has
rightly awarded a lump sum amount under various heads,
considering the fact that, at the time of the accident, the
claimant was a student and a non-earning person. That, the
learned Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence on
record, and therefore, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and
the learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company.
Perused the impugned judgment and award.
566-20-FA.odt
{5}
7. After considering the respective submissions advanced by
both sides, it emerges that the appellant was 17 years old at the
time of the road traffic accident, and this fact is not in dispute.
Before this Court, there is no serious challenge to the allegation
of rash and negligent driving on the part of the truck driver. The
present appeal is filed only on getting dissatisfied by the
quantum of compensation.
8. On visiting the impugned judgment and award, it appears
that, the Tribunal has accepted the claimant's case to the extent
of she to be a student. However, paragraphs 14 and 15 of the
judgment show that the Tribunal awarded a lump sum
compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards loss of future income,
disability caused, loss of amenities of life and marriage
prospects. Rs. 1,00,000/- towards future treatment, and Rs.
50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering.
9. Even vide Exhibits 78 to 80, in spite of raising medical
bills to the tune of Rs.4,23,968/-, the Tribunal has considered
that claimant's father has availed reimbursement Rs.2,10,003/-
in another claim from his employer, and has thereby awarded
566-20-FA.odt
{6}
only Rs.2,13,965/- and by adding expenses for transportation,
special diet and miscellaneous expenses, this amount was made
to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-.
10. There is substance in the case raised before this Court that
precedent for granting compensation to the victims, who are
undergoing education, has not been taken into account and
rather, lump sum amount has been awarded.
11. In S. Mohammed Hakkim Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
And Ors., MANU/SC/0994/2025, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
exercised powers under Section 142 of the Constitution of India
and has taken into account the facts that victim therein, who
was 20 years of age at the time of accident, was already in the
3rd year of Engineering College and considered Rs.20,000/- as
notional income of the victim therein, and then calculations
were made on the said basis. In V. Mekala Vs. Malathi and
Others, (2014) 11 SCC 178, taking into account that victim
therein was found to be a brilliant student and that she had
secured first rank in the 10 th Standard, the Hon'ble Apex Court
was pleased to consider Rs.10,000/- as her monthly notional
income.
566-20-FA.odt
{7}
12. Therefore, in the present case also, this court is of the
opinion that, the monthly notional income needs to be
considered as Rs.10,000/-.
13. Similarly, in view of Mrs. Dolly Satish Gandhi and another
(supra), though claimant's father was beneficiary of claim from
his employer, she is still entitled for the entire medical expenses,
which are demonstrated in Exhibits 78 to 80.
14. In view of the guidelines in Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors. , (2009)6 SCC 121 and
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
others, 2017 (16) SCC 680, the multiplier would be taken as 18,
and future prospects would be 40%.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, claimant is entitled for
following compensation.
Head Compensation
Amount
1. Monthly Notional Income - Rs.10,000/- Rs.5,600/-
40% Future Prospects Rs.4,000/-
(10,000 + 4,000 = 14,000)
40% disability
(14,000 x 40/100 = 5,600)
566-20-FA.odt
{8}
2. Annual Income Rs. 67,200/-
(5,600 X 12)
3. Multiplier 18 Rs.12,09,600/-
[Rs. 67,200/- x 18 (multiplier)]
2. Lump sum amount for disability caused, Rs. 3,00,000/-
loss of amenities of life and marriage
prospects.
3. Medical bills Rs.4,23,968/-
4. For Pain and sufferings Rs.50,000/-
(as awarded by the Tribunal)
5. For future treatment Rs.1,00,000/-
(as awarded by the Tribunal)
6. Total compensation awarded Rs.20,83,568/-
7. (-) Compensation awarded by M.A.C.T. Rs.7,00,000/-
8. Enhanced Compensation Rs.13,83,568/-
(20,82,600 - 7,00,000/-)
16. In the result, following order is passed :-
ORDER
(i) Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs.
(ii) Impugned judgment and award dated 26.03.2015,
passed by the Member, M.A.C.T., Beed in M.A.C.P.
No.50 of 2011 is modified.
(iii) Respondent no.2-insurance company to pay enhanced
compensation of Rs.13,83,568/- to the claimant within
12 weeks from today along with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of registration of claim petition
till its realization.
566-20-FA.odt
{9}
(iv) Modified award be prepared accordingly.
(v) Claimant to pay court fees on enhanced compensation
as per rules.
(vi) On deposit of the amount by Insurance Company,
appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same.
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE,
JUDGE
S P Rane
