Bombay High Court
Pooja @ Bhagyshri W/O Prashant Parsalge ... vs Lokmangal Agro Industries Ltd., Thr Its ... on 2 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:16794
5059-17-FA.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.5059 OF 2017
1. Smt. Pooja @ Bhagyashri Wd/o Prashant
Parsale
Age: 24 years, Occu.: Housewife,
2. Pushkar S/o Prashant Parsalge,
Age: 3 years, Occu. Nil (Minor)
Through his natural guardian and mother
Smt. Pooja @ Bhagyshri Wd/o Prashant
Parsalge
3. Shivshankar S/o Malappa Parsalge,
Age: 48 years, Occu.: Agri.,
4. Hirkanbai W/o. Shivshankar Parsalge,
Age: 53 years, Occu.: Household,
All R/o. Killari, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur ... Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
Versus
1. Lokmangal Agro Industries Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Subhash Nagar, Bibidharphal,
Tq. North Solapur, Dist. Solapur
2. Datta S/o. Kishanrao Chavan,
Age: 27 years, Occu.: Driver,
R/o. Mahatpuri (Tanda),
Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani
3. The New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Branch Manager,
Branch Office, Chandranagar,
Latur, Dist. Latur. ... Respondents
5059-17-FA.odt
{2}
......
Mr. B. R. Kedar, Advocate for Appellants
Mr. S. B. Madde, Advocate h/f Mr. A. R. Joshi, Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Mr. Omkar S. Patil, Advocate h/f Mr. S. S. Shinde, Advocate for
Respondent No.2
Mr. M. M. Ambhore, Advocate for Respondent No.3
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 16 JUNE, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 02 JULY, 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Original claimants in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.114 of 2014 are primarily dissatisfied on the quantum
awarded by the learned Tribunal under various heads on
account of death of the husband of appellant No.1 in road traffic
accident dated 20.03.2014, and by the present appeal, they have
assailed the judgment and award dated 06.04.2017.
BRIEF FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE APPEAL
2. On 20.03.2014, deceased Prashant aged 24 years was
proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration no. MH-24-
AD-5871 from village Killari to village Kunhalli. At that time,
truck bearing No. MH-13-R-7315 came from opposite direction
in high speed and without giving any signal, suddenly stopped
in the middle side of the road, due to which motorcycle was
dashed inflicting fatal injuries to deceased Prashant, who
succumbed to the same.
5059-17-FA.odt
{3}
3. On report, investigation was conducted and charge-sheet
was filed against respondent No.2-truck driver. Appellant-wife,
son and parents of deceased Prashant set up an accident claim
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur to the tune of
Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads. Notices were issued to the
respondents. Respondent nos.1 and 3 resisted the claim by filing
written statement. Respondent no.2 failed to contest, and
therefore, matter proceeded without his written statement. Both,
oral as well as documentary evidence, was permitted to be
adduced.
4. On appreciation of the same, Tribunal framed issues vide
Exhibit-32, and after recording evidence and hearing parties,
allowed the claim petition directing respondent nos.1 and 3 to
jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with
future interest @ 6% under various heads vide judgment and
award dated 06.04.2017. Claimants are aggrieved precisely by
inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel for claimants assailed the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, contending that the
Tribunal has committed an error while making calculation of
5059-17-FA.odt
{4}
compensation under various heads. He submits that, the
Tribunal has not considered the issue of future prospects while
determining the amount of compensation. He further submits
that, Tribunal has also not awarded compensation under the
heads such as loss of love and affection, loss of estate etc. That,
meager amount has been granted under various heads like
funeral expenses etc. Even interest awarded by the Tribunal is
excessively less.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2
and the learned counsel for the insurance company justified and
supported the findings and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal
and prays no interference in the same.
7. Heard learned counsel for appellants/claimants, learned
counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for
respondent no.3 /insurance company. Perused the record.
8. There is no dispute about occurrence, rashness and
negligence, and findings to that extent arrived at by the
Tribunal.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, it
appears that the primary ground of appeal is dissatisfaction with
5059-17-FA.odt
{5}
the quantum awarded under the head of loss of future income
from agricultural produce, meager amount being granted under
the head of funeral expenses, loss of consortium etc. In support
of his submissions, learned counsel for the claimants relied on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others,
(2018) 18 SCC 130 and judgment of this Court in The United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sumanbai Samindar Chavhan (First
Appeal No.01 of 2017).
10. On re-appreciation and reanalysis of the evidence, it is
observed that, the claim set up by the present appellants before
the Tribunal is that the deceased, who was 24 years of age, was
earning Rs. 2,00,000/- per year through vegetable vending and
agricultural income. Claimants have lost their source of income.
In support of agricultural income, claimants have adduced
evidence of vegetable vendor, namely, Masumali Bagwan, who
produced the sale receipts at Exhibits 56 and 60. One Ismail
Bagwan, another vegetable vendor, also produced bills of
payments made to deceased Prashant, which are at Exhibits 63
to 66. In their evidence, they have deposed about deceased
Prashant supplying vegetables for sale. Though they failed to
5059-17-FA.odt
{6}
produce the original records maintained regarding the sale and
purchase transactions, considering the benevolent nature of the
provision, the standard of strict proof is given way to. These
vegetable vendors have testified before the Tribunal about
transactions made with them by deceased Prashant. However, it
has come out in the evidence of appellant no.1-wife that the
agricultural land, which was the source of the agricultural
produce, was joint family property standing in the name of
claimant no.3-father. Therefore, this shows that agricultural land
was jointly owned, rather than separately standing in the name
of deceased. However, in light of the evidence of independent
witnesses, such as vegetable vendors, there is no reason to carve
out a distinct income from the agricultural land owned by the
father, as deceased Prashant was earning income from the said
land, which served as the source of livelihood for his family
comprising of his wife and son.
11. In the present case, computations and calculations made
by the learned Tribunal are reflected in paragraph 23 of the
impugned judgment. It is noticed that, incomplete method was
adopted for arriving at the annual income. Apparently, no
amount has been awarded under the head of future prospects.
5059-17-FA.odt
{7}
So also, no amount has been awarded under the heads of loss of
estate, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses, and even
meager amount appears to have been awarded under the head
of loss of consortium.
12. 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. (supra), claimants
are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each, i.e. 1,60,000/- plus 20% (Rs.
32,000/-) which comes to Rs. 1,92,000/- towards consortium
and loss of love and affection. Rs. 15,000/- plus 30%
(Rs.3,000/-), which comes to Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate
and Rs.15,000/- plus 30% (Rs.3,000/-), which comes to
Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses.
13. Claimants are also entitled for future prospects.
Considering that the age of deceased at the time of accident was
24 years, 40% needs to be awarded towards future prospectus in
view of ratio in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra).
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, claimants are
entitled for following compensation.
5059-17-FA.odt
{8}
Sr. Heads Amount (Rs.)
No.
1. Annual Income (i.e. Rs.3000 X 12) Rs. 36,000/-
2. Future Prospects 40% Rs. 50,400/-
i.e. 14,400 (36,000 + 14,400)
3. Less 1/4 deduction towards personal Rs. 37,800/-
expenses.
(Rs. 50,400 - Rs 12,600)
4. Multiplier of 18 (37,800 X 18) Rs.6,80,400/-
5. Non-pecuniary Losses:-
Rs.2,28,000/-
Loss consortium and
Love and affection = Rs.1,92,000/-
Loss of Estate = Rs.18,000/-
Funeral Expenses = Rs.18,000/-
6. Total compensation to be paid Rs.9,08,000/-
(i.e. 6,80,400 + 2,47,000)
7. Compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs.5,00,000/-
8. Total Enhanced Compensation Rs.4,08,000/-
(9,08,000 - 5,00,000)
15. In the result, following order is passed :-
ORDER
(i) Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs.
(ii) Impugned judgment and award dated
06.04.2017, passed by Adhoc District Judge-1
and Ex-Officio Member of M.A.C.T., Latur in
M.A.C.P. No.114 of 2014 is modified.
5059-17-FA.odt
{9}
(iii) Respondent no.3-insurance company to pay
enhanced compensation of Rs.4,08,000/- to
claimants within 12 weeks from today along with
interest @ 6% 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,
appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw
the same.
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE,
JUDGE
S P Rane
