Bombay High Court
Shantabai Maroti Dhotre And Others vs Balvindarsingh Jagatsingh Sandhu And ... on 19 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:22479
1109-22-FA.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1109 OF 2022
1. Shantabai Wd/o. Maroti Dhotre,
Age: 40 years, Occu.: Household,
2. Ramdas S/o. Maroti Dhotre,
Age: 23 years, Occu.: Education
3. Rohidas S/o. Maroti Dhote,
Age: 20 years, Occu. : Education
4. Sonubai W/o. Digambar Dhotre, (Died) ... Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
Versus
1. Balvindarsingh S/o. Jagatsingh Sandhu,
Age: 40 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Plot No.49, Nandigram Society,
Nanded, Tq. and Dist. Nanded.
2. United India Insurance Com. Ltd.,
Through its Divisional Manager,
Off/At Guru Complex, G.G. Road,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded .... Respondents
(Orig. Respondents)
......
Mr. Vaibhav B. Dhage, Advocate for Appellants
Mr. S.V. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.2
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 11 AUGUST, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 19 AUGUST 2025
1109-22-FA.odt
{2}
JUDGMENT :
-
1. The original claimants in M.A.C.P. No. 300 of 2016, decided by
the Member, M.A.C.P., Nanded, are aggrieved by the meagre quantum
of compensation awarded, as well as the non-consideration of the
shares of original claimants Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., the sons of the deceased
Maroti
FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:
2. On 29.03.2016, deceased Maroti was proceeding on his
motorcycle bearing No.MH-17-X4633 and his brother Masu was the
pillion rider. There was a diversion on the road near Maltekdi Bridge,
Nanded. When the motorcycle was in the vicinity of Dr. Ambedkar
Bhawan, a truck bearing registration No. MH-26-AD-1797, coming
from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and at
high speed, gave dash to the motorcycle, causing fatal injuries to
Maroti. Crime was registered against the truck driver vide Crime
No.62 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304-A,
337 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134, 177 of Motor Vehicles
Act.
3. The present appellants/original claimants filed Claim Petition
No. 300 of 2016, contending that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. It is further contended
1109-22-FA.odt
{3}
that, at the time of the accident, the deceased was 43 years of age,
working as a Supervisor in a private construction company, earning a
salary of Rs.15,000/- per month, and was the sole source of income
for the family. On account of the accidental death, they have lost their
source of income and have therefore claimed compensation under
various heads to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- from respondents No. 1
and 2, jointly and severally.
4. Though respondent No. 1 appeared, he failed to file his written
statement. Hence, the claim petition proceeded without the written
statement of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2, the insurance
company, filed a written statement at Exhibit-18, taking the stand that
the deceased himself was rash and negligent. The second ground of
objection was that the driver of the offending truck was not holding a
valid driving licence, which amounted to breach of the insurance
policy. Lastly, it was contended that the insurer of the motorcycle was
not made a party to the claim petition. Therefore, the insurance
company sought dismissal of the claim petition against it.
5. The Tribunal, vide judgment and award dated 19.01.2022,
granted compensation to the tune ofRs.6,55,000/- with interest at 7%
per annum to Claimant No. 1 (wife) and Claimant No. 4, Sonubai
(mother of the deceased)
1109-22-FA.odt
{4}
Feeling aggrieved by above judgment and award, claimants have
preferred the instant appeal on various grounds spelt out in the appeal
memo.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
rashness and negligence on the part of the truck driver were duly
demonstrated before the Tribunal. That, it was also demonstrated
before the Tribunal that deceased was 43 years of the age; however,
the Tribunal failed to consider the same and considered the age of
deceased as 50 years. That, the tribunal has also failed to consider that
the deceased was working as a supervisor and earning salary of
Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the same is not considered and
rather notional income is considered only to the tune of Rs.6,000/- per
month. That, the Tribunal awarded compensation only to Claimants
No. 1 and 4, and failed to consider that Claimants No. 2 and 3 were
also dependents of the deceased. Therefore, on both counts, the
learned counsel prays for enhancement of compensation including
claimants No. 2 and 3.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance
company supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal, contending that every aspect put forth before the Tribunal
has been correctly appreciated, and therefore, the impugned judgment
1109-22-FA.odt
{5}
and award, being legally justified, should not be interfered with.
8. Heard both the sides. Perused the papers and impugned
judgment and award.
9. It is seen that in the claim petition there is no dispute regarding
the fact that the deceased, Maroti, met with accidental death while
proceeding on the motorcycle bearing No. MH-17-X-4633, which was
dashed by the truck bearing No. MH-26-AD-1797. There is no dispute
that the deceased, Maroti, succumbed to the injuries sustained in the
said accident. This Court came across with the findings of the Tribunal
in paragraphs no. 15 to 20. In paragraph 16, the Tribunal observed
that the alleged accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent
driving of the truck. Furthermore, it held that there was no need to
add the insurance company of the motorcycle as a party, and
therefore, the claim petition is not bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties. In paragraph 17, the Tribunal has rightly discussed the
defence raised by the insurance company that the driver of the
offending truck was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at
the time of the accident, which constituted a breach of the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy, and held that the insurance
company is bound to comply with the contract of indemnity it had
with respondent No. 1, the owner of the truck.
1109-22-FA.odt
{6}
10. Consequently, the issues contested by the appellant are firstly,
the quantum of compensation and secondly, that the share of
Claimants Nos. 2 and 3 was not considered while awarding
compensation to Claimants Nos. 1 and 4.
11. Before the Tribunal, the claimants set up the case that the
deceased, Maroti, was working as a supervisor at Jyoti Construction
Company, Beed, and was receiving a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month.
Though Claimant No. 2, Ramdas (son of the deceased), was made to
step into the witness box, he could not produce any documentary
evidence to prove the said fact. Therefore, the Tribunal was left with
no alternative but to consider the notional income of the deceased,
Maroti, as Rs. 6,000/- per month and this apparently seems to be on
the lower side. However, the same is required to be modified as
Rs.7,000/- per month. Even as regards to age is concerned, though
there is no documentary evidence, the only material that can be relied
upon in such circumstances is the postmortem report. In the instant
case, the postmortem report of the deceased, Maroti, indicates that at
the time of the accident, he was 45 years old. However, the Tribunal
assumed the age of the deceased to be about 50 years solely because
the age of the elder son was shown as 23 years in the title clause of
the claim petition, and accordingly applied a multiplier of 13.
1109-22-FA.odt
{7}
Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal erred in
considering the age of the deceased, Maroti, as well as the multiplier
applicable to such age group. In view of ratio laid down in Sarla
Verma (SMT) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the correct multiplayer in the instant case
is 14.
12. Now, coming to the ground that the Tribunal did not consider
the share of Claimants Nos. 2 and 3 while awarding compensation, it
is noted that the Tribunal observed the dependency of Claimants Nos.
2 and 3 in paragraph 21. Merely because Claimants Nos. 2 and 3 were
shown as 23 and 20 years of age respectively in the title clause of the
claim petition, they were not considered as dependents of the
deceased. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal erred
in not considering their entitlement and, consequently, erred in
deducting one-half of the amount towards personal expenses.
13. In view of the ratio laid down in National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680, and Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2018 (18) SCC 130, each claimant is
entitle for Rs. 40,000/- towards consortium. In the instant appeal
claimant No.4 is no more. Therefore, now claimant Nos.1 to 3 are
entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium, i.e. Rs.1,20,000
1109-22-FA.odt
{8}
plus 10% (Rs.12,000/-) which comes to Rs.1,32,000/-. Considering
that the deceased was 45 years old at the time of the accident, 30%
should be awarded towards future prospects instead of 25%.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, claimants are entitled for
following compensation.
Sr. Heads Amount (Rs.)
No.
1. Annual Income 84,000/-
Rs.7,000 X 12 = 84,000/-
2. Future Prospects 30% 1,09,200/-
i.e. 25,200 (84,000 + 25,200)
3. 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses 72,800/-
(i.e.1,09,200 - 36,400)
3. Multiplier of 14 (72,800 X 14) 10,19,200/-
4. Non-pecuniary Losses:-
(i) Loss of Estate 15,000/-
(as awarded by the Tribunal)
(ii) Funeral expenses 15,000/-
(as awarded by the Tribunal)
1,32,000/-
(iii) Loss of consortium and
love and affection
4. Total compensation to be paid 11,81,200/-
5. Compensation awarded by Tribunal 6,55,000/-
6. Total Enhanced Compensation 5,26,200/-
(i.e. Rs.11,81,000 - 6,55,000)
15. In the result, following order is passed :-
1109-22-FA.odt
{9}
ORDER
(i) First appeal is allowed with proportional costs.
(ii) Impugned judgment and award dated 19.01.2022
passed by Adhoc District Judge-1 and Ex-Officio
Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded
in M.A.C.P. No.300 of 2016 is modified.
(iii) Respondent no.2 - Insurance Company to pay
enhanced compensation of Rs.5,26,200/- to the
claimants within 12 weeks from today along with
interest @ 7% per annum from the date of
registration of claim petition till its realization. The
insurance company is directed to deposit the amount
of enhanced compensation in this Court.
(iv) Modified award be prepared accordingly.
(v) Claimants to pay court fees on enhanced
compensation as per rules.
(vi) On deposit of the amount by Insurance Company,
appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw the
same.
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE,
JUDGE
S P Rane
