Bombay High Court

Suvarnamala Govind Bombade And Ors vs Tanaji Waghambhar Mitkari And Anr on 26 August, 2025

2025:BHC-AUG:23239
                                                                   FA-1878-2021
                                              -1-

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             FIRST APPEAL NO. 1878 OF 2021

            1.   Suvarnamala W/o. Govind Bombade,
                 Age ; 29 years, Occu. : Household,

            2.   Aaryan S/o. Govind Bombade,
                 Age : 11 years, Occu. : Education,

            3.   Sayali D/o Govind Bombade,
                 Age : 06 years, Occu. : Education,
                 (Appellans Nos.2 & 3 are minors,
                 Representing through Natural
                 Guardian Mother i.e. Appellant No.1)

            4.   Ram S/o. Dnyanoba Bombade,
                 Age : 66 years, Occu. : Nil.,

            5.   Surekha W/o. Ram Bombade,
                 Age: 61 years, Occu. : Nil.,

                 All R/o. Venkatesh Nagar,
                 Amba Hanman Colony No.3,
                 Ambejogai Road, Latur,
                 Tq & Dist. Latur                           ... Appellants
                                                             (Orig. Claimants)

                      Versus
            1.   Tanaji S/o. Waghambhar Mitkari,
                 Age : Major, Occu. : Business,
                 R/o. Janwal, Tq. Chakur,
                 Dist. Latur (Owner of Tempo)

            2.   Branch Manager,
                 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
                 Shop No. 32 & 34,
                 Navander Arcade, Kava Road,
                 Opp. Market Yard, Gate No.2,
                 Latur - 413 512                            ... Respondents.
                                                             (Orig. Defendants)
                                                           FA-1878-2021
                                 -2-

                                .....
Mr. Ram S. Shinde, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. Mohit Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                .....
                             CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                      RESERVED ON : 13 AUGUST 2025
                    PRONOUNCED ON : 26 AUGUST 2025

JUDGMENT :

1. Original claimant nos.1 to 5, who instituted M.A.C.P.

No.254 of 2013 under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, are

dissatisfied by grant of compensation by learned Ad-hoc District

Judge-1 & Ex-Officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur

dated 06.05.2019.

BRIEF FACTS

2. Claimants, who are heirs of deceased Govind filed above

claim petition on the premise that on 27.08.2013, while deceased

was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No. MH-24-W-293 over

Chakur to Latur road, while in the vicinity Mahalangra Pati, tempo

bearing no.MH-24-J-6301 coming from opposite direction in

excessive high speed and which was being driven in rash and

negligent manner, gave dash to the motorcycle. Govind suffered fatal

injuries and died on the spot. Crime was registered against tempo

driver bearing no. 160 of 2013 for offence punishable under sections

279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

FA-1878-2021

3. Wife, children and parents of deceased Govind set up a

case before Accident Claims Tribunal that deceased Govind was the

sole bread earner. He worked as a Supervisor in Indus Towers

Limited and earned salary of Rs.29,562/- per month and thereby

maintaining himself and his family. Due to untimely accidental death,

they have lost very source and under various heads they set up a

claim of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.

4. Above claim was contested by original respondent nos.1

and 2, denying the above case.

5. Learned tribunal framed issues, appreciated the oral and

documentary evidence and finally held claimants to be entitled for

compensation to the tune of Rs.29,12,440/- with interest at the rate

of 9% per annum. Respondent no.2 was specifically directed to satisfy

the award and then to recover the same from respondent no.1.

6. Before this court, learned counsel for appellants

claimants would submit that, there is no serious challenge to the

other issues and findings and present appeal is confined only to the

aspect of quantum which according to claimants is inadequate and

unjust. Learned counsel would submit that, claimants had proved

that deceased Govind worked as Supervisor. His appointment letter

as well as salary slips were placed on record to substantiate the FA-1878-2021

salary income. He pointed out that, annexures clearly shows that

salary earned by deceased Govind was over Rs. 26,000/- per month

and he used to regularly gained 10% additional income. The Manager

of the company where deceased was working also examined,

however, learned tribunal failed to consider such evidence and only

considered salary of Rs.20,000/-. According to him, even calculations

made by tribunal for compensation are improper. Unnecessarily

deductions of 25% are made for no reason. Further, again deductions

are made considering strength of dependency and even when

deceased being 27 years of age, 50% future prospects ought to have

been considered as he was below 40 years of age. Learned counsel

also expresses dissatisfaction for rate of interest awarded by tribunal

i.e at the rate of 9%. For all above reasons, compensation sought to

be enhanced by taking into account full salary as per salary

certificate, additional income and by applying correct dependency,

then making necessary deductions and to award future prospects by

considering the age as 27 years.

7. In answer to above, learned counsel for insurance

company would submit that, in fact, tribunal has been liberal in

granting compensation. Compensation awarded is in consonance with

quality of evidence. Learned counsel pointed out that, in fact,

deceased was a probationer and not a confirmed employee. Therefore, FA-1878-2021

according to him, correct computation is done by considering number

of days for which services were rendered. That, documents adduced

by claimants itself were relied. Deceased was merely 12 th standard

passed. Lastly, he submitted that in absence of evidence about fix

salary, consideration of Rs. 20,000/- per month salary is also rather

exorbitant.

8. After hearing the submissions advanced by both sides,

admittedly, here, this court is only called upon to interfere only on

the point of quantum of compensation awarded by learned tribunal.

9. Re-appreciated the evidence. In trial court claimants

asserted that deceased Govind by rendering service in Indus Towers

Limited earned salary of Rs.29,500/-. In support of service, Exh.48

which is a service agreement and Exh.49 is the salary certificate are

placed on record and one Shrikant Shinde has been examined, who is

also an employee of above company.

Exh.48 clearly shows that deceased Govind was under

probation period and it further appears that deceased joined barely

20 days prior to the unfortunate accident. Though taking the aspect

of deceased to be on probation and he had worked only for 20 days,

aspect of he to be in employment and earning salary cannot be

denied.

FA-1878-2021

10. Learned tribunal, in paragraph 21, has held that

deceased was on probation and was not permanent employee and

therefore claimants are not entitled to utilize full benefits of

enumeration and there is need for 25% deduction from salary, has no

logical foundation. Proper basis for computing compensation is the

loss of financial dependency. The salary slip is considered an effective

piece of evidence to establish the income of deceased. Though

probation period may have a bearing on job security, it would not

negate the factum of deceased earning salary during his lifetime.

11. Resultantly, taking Exh.49 into account net salary

received by deceased is shown to be Rs.20,500/- and claimants have

also adduced evidence of witness Shrikant Shinde , in the considered

opinion of this court, there ought not to have been 25% deduction

from the above salary. It would be too early and unreasonably to

presume that deceased would not have been made permanent, more

particularly, in the light of nature of beneficial legislation. Therefore,

the monthly income is considered as Rs.20,500/- per month.

12. In view of the ratio laid down in National Insurance

Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., 2017 SCC Online SC 1270

and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru FA-1878-2021

Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , claimants are entitled for Rs.

40,000/- each, i.e. 80,000 /- plus 20% (Rs.16,000/-) which comes to

Rs.96,000/- towards consortium and loss of love and affection.

13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, claimants are entitled

for following compensation.

       Sr.                        Heads                     Amount (Rs.)
       No.
        1. Annual Income (Rs.20,500 x 12 )                      2,46,000/-

        2. Future Prospects 50%                                 3,69,000/-
           i.e. 1,23,000 (2,46,000 + 1,23,000)
        3. Less 1/4 deduction towards personal                  2,76,750/-
           expenses.
           (Rs. 3,69,000 - Rs 92,250)
        4. Multiplier of 17 (2,76,750 X 17)                    47,04,750/-
           (Loss of dependency)
        5. Loss of consortium and love and affection              96,000/-
        6. Transportation of dead body (as per tribunal)          10,000/-
        7. Funeral Expenses (as per tribunal)                     10,000/-
        8. Total compensation to be paid                       48,20,750/-
        9. Compensation awarded by Tribunal                    29,12,440/-
       10. Total Enhanced Compensation                         19,08,310/-
           (i.e. Rs.14,36,746 - 9,22,746)


.      In the result, following order is passed :-

                                    ORDER

(i)    Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs.

(ii) Impugned judgment and award dated 06.05.2019, passed by FA-1878-2021

the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1 & Ex-Officio Member, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur in M.A.C.P. No.254 of 2013 is

modified.

(iii) Respondent no.2 - insurance company to pay enhanced

compensation of Rs.19,08,310/- to claimants within 12 weeks from

today along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of

registration of claim petition till its realization.

(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,