Bombay High Court

Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Shri. Jamburao Kallappa Latkar And Ors on 22 July, 2025

Author: Shivkumar Dige

Bench: Shivkumar Dige

2025:BHC-AS:31971

Shubhada S Kadam 48-FA(ST)-5467-2020 (C).doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 5467 OF 2020

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Appellant/
Through its Corporate Office, Original
4th Floor, Chintamani Avenue, Opponent No.2
Off Western Express Highway,
Goregaon-East, Mumbai - 400 063.
versus
1 Jamburao Kallappa Latkar Original
Age : 71 years, Occ.Nil. Applicant No.1
2 Suman Jamburao Latkar, Original
Age ; 59 years, Occ.Household. Applicant No.2
3 Laxmi Prashant Latkar, Original
Age : 30 years, Occ.Household. Applicant No.3
4 Siddhant Prashant Latkar, Original
Age : 9 years, Occ. Education. Applicant No.4
5 Manaswi Prashant Latkar, Original
Age : 3 years, Occ : Nil. Applicant No.5
(No.4 and 5 minor through guardian Applicant
No.3 - Natural mother
All R/o. Sanjaynagar, Sangli,
Tal. Miraj, District : Sangli.
6 Kishor Babaso Gaikwad, Original
Age : Major, Occ.Labourer, Opponent No.1
R/o. Near K.P.T. Agar Bhag, Shirol,
Tal. Shirol, District : Kolhapur.
7 Ramesh Vilas Dhumal, .Original
Age : 40 years, Occ. Labourer, Opponent No.2
R/o. Dharangutti,
Tal. Shirol, District : Kolhapur.
Respondents

Along with
CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.21197 OF 2025
in
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 5467 OF 2020
1 Jamburao Kallappa Latkar
Age : 76 years, Occ.Nil.
2 Suman Jamburao Latkar,
Digitally
Age ; 64 years, Occ.Household.
signed by
SHUBHADA 3 Laxmi Prashant Latkar,
SHUBHADA SHANKAR
SHANKAR KADAM
KADAM Date:
2025.07.30 1/8
11:15:30
+0530

::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 07:05:29 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 48-FA(ST)-5467-2020 (C).doc

Age : 35 years, Occ.Household.
4 Siddhant Prashant Latkar,
Age : 14 years, Occ. Education.
5 Manaswi Prashant Latkar, Cross -
Age : 5 years, Occ : Nil. Objectors
(No.4 and 5 minor through guardian Applicant
No.3 - Natural mother
All R/o. Sanjaynagar, Sangli,
Tal. Miraj, District : Sangli.
In the matter between
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Appellant/
Through its Corporate Office, Original
4th Floor, Chintamani Avenue, Opponent No.2
Off Western Express Highway,
Goregaon-East, Mumbai - 400 063.
versus
1 Jamburao Kallappa Latkar
Age : 76 years, Occ.Nil.
2 Suman Jamburao Latkar,
Age ; 64 years, Occ.Household.
3 Laxmi Prashant Latkar,
Age : 35 years, Occ.Household.
4 Siddhant Prashant Latkar,
Age : 14 years, Occ. Education.
5 Manaswi Prashant Latkar,
Age : 5 years, Occ : Nil.
(No.4 and 5 minor through guardian Applicant
No.3 - Natural mother
All R/o. Sanjaynagar, Sangli,
Tal. Miraj, District : Sangli.
6 Kishor Babaso Gaikwad,
Age : Major, Occ.Labourer,
R/o. Near K.P.T. Agar Bhag, Shirol,
Tal. Shirol, District : Kolhapur.
7 Ramesh Vilas Dhumal, Respondents
Age : 40 years, Occ. Labourer, Rest. Nos.1 to 5
R/o. Dharangutti, Org. Claimants
Tal. Shirol, District : Kolhapur. and Resp. No.6
and 7
Org.Opp.No.1
and 3

2/8

::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 07:05:29 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 48-FA(ST)-5467-2020 (C).doc

Mr. Rahul Mehta i/b. KMC Legal Venture, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Vijay Killedar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 22nd JULY, 2025.

Oral Judgment:

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company

against the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Jaysingpur, (for short "the Tribunal"). The respondents/claimants

also preferred cross-objection for enhancement of compensation. Both

the appeal and cross-objection are against the same judgment and order,

hence, I am deciding both the matter by this common judgment.

2. It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company that the accident happened due to sole negligence of the

deceased. The Tribunal has considered monthly income of the deceased

on higher side and there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance

policy but the Tribunal has not considered these facts. Hence, requested

to allow the appeal.

3. It is contention of learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to

5/claimants that the Tribunal has not awarded future prospects and

consortium amount is awarded on lower side, hence, requested to allow

the cross-objection and dismiss the appeal.

4. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the impugned

judgment and order passed by the Tribunal.

3/8

::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 07:05:29 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 48-FA(ST)-5467-2020 (C).doc

5. It is claimants case that on 1st November 2014, the deceased-

Prashant was proceeding to Ichalkarnji on his motorcycle for his work. He

was riding the motorcycle cautiously and in accordance with traffic rules.

When he reached near the spot of accident, at that time, one motorcycle

bearing registration No.MH-09-DD-8904 came from opposite direction.

The rider of the said motorcycle while overtaking a truck, came on the

wrong side of the road and gave dash to the motorcycle of Prashant. Due

to dash, Prashant was thrown away on the road and sustained injuries to

his head, chin and other parts of the body and succumbed to his injuries

while undergoing medical treatment. An offence was registered against

the rider of other motorcycle i.e. respondent No.7 (original opponent

No.3).

6. To prove the negligence of the rider of other motorcycle i/e.

respondent No.7, the claimants have examined PW3-Anwar Jamadar at

Exhibit-41. He has stated that the accident occurred due to sole

negligence of rider of the other motorcycle and he was pillion rider on the

motorcycle of the deceased.

7. While dealing with the issue of negligence, the Tribunal has

observed that accident occurred due to sole negligence of respondent

No.7. The FIR and police papers produced on record supports the

claimants' case. On that ground, the Tribunal has held that respondent

No.7 was negligence in the accident. I do not find infirmity in it.

4/8

::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 07:05:29 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 48-FA(ST)-5467-2020 (C).doc

8. Though it is contention of learned counsel for the appellant-

Insurance Company that the deceased himself was negligent for the

accident but the appellant-Insurance Company has not produced

evidence on record to support the said contention nor the rider of the

offending motorcycle stepped into the witness box to prove the negligence

of the deceased. Hence, I do not find merit in the contention that the

accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased.

9. It is claimants' case that the deceased was serving as

H.R.Manager at Unique Auto Assemblies at Ichalkaranji and he was

drawing salary of Rs.21,050/-per month. To prove the said fact, the

claimants have examined PW-2 Umesh B. Khot, Employee of Unique

Auto Assemblies. He has stated that the deceased was serving as

H.R.Manager. He has produced salary slip of October 2013 to October

2014 and those slips are at Exhibit-37. He has further stated that the

deceased was permanent employee and he was getting monthly salary of

Rs.21,050/-. Nothing elicited in cross-examination of this witness. After

going through the salary slip, it is revealed that after deducting Rs.200/-

towards professional tax, the Tribunal has considered the monthly

income of the deceased at Rs.20,850/-.I do not find infirmity in it. In my

view, the deceased was permanent employee and from his salary slip, it is

revealed that he was getting salary of Rs.20,850/-. There is no reason to

disbelieve the evidence of PW-2.

5/8

::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 07:05:29 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 48-FA(ST)-5467-2020 (C).doc

11. While awarding compensation, the Tribunal has not awarded

future prospects. At the time of accident, deceased was 37 year old and

he was permanent employee, hence, the claimants are entitled for 50% as

future prospects as per the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

National Insurance Co. ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ 2700( SC).

12. The Tribunal has awarded consortium amount on lower side.

There are five claimants. As per the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782

(SC), each claimant is entitled for Rs.44000/- as consortium amount,

Rs.18,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.18000/- for funeral expenses.

13. Considering the above calculations, the claimants are entitled

for following compensation :

Particulars Rs. Amount
Annual Income (Rs.20850/- x 12) Rs. 2,50,200.00
50% future prospects Rs. 1,25,100.00
Total Rs. 3,75,300.00
1/4 deduction towards personal expenses Rs. 93,825.00
Total Rs. 2,81,475.00
Rs.2,81,475/- x 15(multiplier) Rs. 42,22,125.00
Consortium (Rs.44,000/- x 5(claimants)) Rs. 2,20,000.00
Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000.00
Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000.00
Total Compensation Rs. 44,78,125.00

6/8

::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 07:05:29 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 48-FA(ST)-5467-2020 (C).doc

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.28,84,750/-, if this amount is

deducted from the amount of Rs.44,78,125/- considered by this Court, it

comes to Rs.15,93,375/-. The claimants are entitled for this amount.

12. In view of above, I pass the following order :

ORDER

(1) First Appeal (Stamp) No.5467 of 2020 is dismissed.

(2) Cross Objection (stamp) No.21197 OF 2025

(3) The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of

Rs.15,93,375/- @ 7.5% interest per annum from the date

of filing claim petition till realisation of the amount. Out of