Bombay High Court
Pushpa Santosh Mundada And Ors vs Surjeet Singh And Anr on 22 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:19021
FA-2390-2020
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.2390 OF 2020
1. Smt. Pushpa Santosh Mundada,
Age : 35 years, Occu. : Household,
2. Rukhmabai Govind Mundada,
Age : 55 years, Occu. : Household,
3. Chi. Mahesh Santosh Mundada,
Age : 12 years, Occu. : Education,
4. Ku. Harshali Santosh Mundada,
Age : 10 years, Occu. : Education,
5. Chi. Monu Santosh Mundada,
Age : 8 years, Occu. : Education,
Applicant No.1 is for herself and
the Natural Guardian as mother of
No.3 to 5, all are r/o Mauje Mehru,
G. 101, MIDC, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon ... Appellants
(Orig.Claimants)
Versus
1. Shri Surjeet Singh,
Age : Major, Occu. : Business,
Vehicle owner, R/o. Kurad, Tahsil Sangad,
Tal and Dist. Kota, Rajasthan.
2. The Divisional Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Reg. HO - New India Assurance Building,
87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai.
Through New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Mandore Market, Dadhiwala Bunglow,
Mehrum Road, At and Post Jalgaon. ... Respondents.
.....
Mr. M M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. M. M. Ambhore, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Respondent No.1 served through paper publication.
.....
FA-2390-2020
-2-
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 11 JULY 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 22 JULY 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Original claimants, who are legal heirs of deceased
Santosh Govindram Mundara, who met death on account of road
traffic accident dated 22.05.2005, have preferred instant appeal,
getting dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon dated 11.01.2012 in
M.A.C.P. No. 80 of 2005. (Parties are referred to as per their status
in the trial court.)
2. In short case set up by claimants is that, deceased
Santosh, who was traveling in Maruti Car from Aurangabad to
Jalgaon for business purpose along with his friends, met with an
accident on account dash given by truck owned by respondent no.1
and the said vehicle insured by respondent no.2, in which he suffered
injuries and succumbed to the same. It is assertion of the claimants
that deceased was sole source of earning. Deceased was Industrialist
cum Businessman and earned around over Rs. 80,000/- per month.
He was income tax payer and as such tax returns are placed at
Exh.44. That, there would have been rise in the income and as such
they set up claim of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum towards loss of income.
FA-2390-2020
Appellant no.1 is the widow and wife of deceased Santosh,
appellant no.2 is the mother of deceased, who is said to be also
depending on him; appellant nos.3 to 5 are children. Age of deceased
Santosh was given as 30 years at the time of accident and as such
under various heads claim was set up to the tune of Rs.18,00,000/-.
3. Learned Tribunal after issuing notice, appreciated the
evidence of claimant no.2, copy of FIR, spot panchanama, P.M.
report, driving licence of offending vehicle, school identity card. R.C.
particulars of vehicle, partnership deed, salary slip and income tax
return.
Present respondent Insurance Company insurer of the
truck alone resisted the claim.
After appreciating the respective cases, by judgment and
order dated 11.01.2012, learned Tribunal has directed compensation
to the tune of Rs.6,47,000/- at the rate of 7.5% interest and it to be
paid jointly and severally by respondent nos.1 and 2.
4. In this appeal, case set up is grant of lower compensation
on the ground that income tax returns are not considered. Instead of
considering compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum only 50% is
FA-2390-2020
considered. That, learned Tribunal granted loss of consortium to only
widow and not to mother and children. That, there were five
claimants, and therefore, deduction is also improper. That, no
amount is awarded for future prospects and meager amount is
granted under the head of funeral expenses. Learned counsel has
placed written notes of arguments on record along with calculations.
5. Learned counsel for Insurance Company resisted on the
ground that it has come on record that, industries which were alleged
to be source of income, are still functioning and as such, there was no
loss of income. Income considered by Tribunal is just and proper.
However, he conceded that, in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay
Sethi and others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others , (2018) 18 SCC
130, amount towards consortium, loss of estate and future prospects
are not granted and he has no objection for granting compensation
under such heads.
6. Re-analyzed the evidence. In support of case of deceased
Santosh to be an Industrialist and partners in three firms,
documentary evidence is placed on record, very mother of claimant,
who has stepped into witness box, has admitted that the industries
FA-2390-2020
are still functioning. Therefore, practically there is no loss of income.
Learned Tribunal has considered the income tax papers and by
giving detail explanation in para 9 has reached to the finding that
income of deceased was to the tune of Rs.80,420/-. Even in written
notes para 3 claimants have considered and asserted such annual
income.
7. As pointed and even fairly admitted by learned counsel
for Insurance Company, learned Tribunal has not considered
compensation under the head of consortium to mother and children.
No amount is awarded towards future prospects as directed in the
case of Pranay Shethi (Supra). Similarly, appellants are also entitled
for reasonable compensation under the head of loss of estate and
funeral expenses.
. In view of the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) and
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram
and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , claimants are entitled for Rs.
40,000/- each, i.e. 2,00,000 /- plus 40% (Rs.80,000/-) which comes to
Rs.2,80,000/- towards consortium and loss of love and affection. Rs.
15,000/- plus 40% (Rs.6,000/-), which comes to Rs.21,000/- towards
loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- plus 40% (Rs. 6,000/-), which comes to
Rs.21,000/- towards funeral expenses.
FA-2390-2020
. In view of the aforesaid discussion, claimants are entitled
for following compensation.
Head Compensation Amount
1 Annual Income Rs.50,000/-
2. Future Prospects 40% Rs.70,000/-
i.e. 20,000 (50,000 + 20,000)
2 (-) 1/4 deduction towards Rs.52,500/-
personal expenses
(70,000 - 17,500/-)
3 Multiplier 17 Rs.8,92,500/-
(52,500 x 17 )
4 Non pecuniary damages Rs. 3,22,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs.2,80,000/-
Funeral Expenses - Rs.21,000/-
Loss of Estate - Rs.21,000/-
5 Total compensation awarded Rs. 12,14,500/-
6 (-) Compensation awarded by M.A.C.T. Rs. 6,47,000/
7 Enhanced Compensation Rs. 5,67,500/-
. In the result, following order is passed :-
ORDER
(i) Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs.
FA-2390-2020
(ii) Impugned judgment and award dated 11.01.2012, passed by
the Member of M.A.C.T., Jalgaon in M.A.C.P. No.80 of 2005 is
modified.
(iii) Respondent no.2 - insurance company to pay enhanced
compensation of Rs.5,67,500/- to claimants within 12 weeks from
today along with interest @ 7.5 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, J.)
Tandale
