Bombay High Court
The Commissioner-Bombay Municipal ... vs Jadavatidevi Somnath Jaiswar And Ors. on 24 July, 2025
Author: Shivkumar Dige
Bench: Shivkumar Dige
2025:BHC-AS:32254
6-FA-803-2003 JUDGMENT.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 803 OF 2003
The Commissioner, ]
Bombay Municipal Corporation, ]
Mahapalika Marg, Bombay 400 001. ]
.... Appellant
(Orig. Opp.
Digitally signed
Party)
by SHANTANU
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
DHUDUM Date:
2025.07.31
10:22:33 +0530
Versus
1. Jadavatidevi Somnath Jaiswar ]
aged 32 years, Wife of deceased. ]
2. Pappu Somnath Jaiswar
Aged 13 years, Son of deceased The Appeal
3. Sangitadevi Somnath Jaiswar stands
aged 9 years, Daughter of deceased dismissed
against
4. Guddu Somnath Jaiswar Respondent
aged 5 years, Son of deceased Nos.2 to 4
by Registrar
residing at Gram & Post - Kumbhapur, order dated
Tahasil - Madiyahun, Bada Post - Jamalapur, 03/05/2017.
District - Janpur
....
Respondents
(Original
Applicants)
-----
Ms. Pallavi Khale, Advocate for the Appellant - BMC.
Ms. Pinky M. Bhansali i/b G. S. Hegde & Associates, Advocate for
Respondent No.1.
-----
Shantanu S. Dhudum 1/4
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:06:02 :::
6-FA-803-2003 JUDGMENT.doc
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 24th JULY, 2025.
JUDGMENT. :
1. This appeal is preferred by the Appellant - Corporation
against the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Mumbai (for short, "the Tribunal").
2. It is contention of learned counsel for the Appellant -
Corporation that the Tribunal has considered monthly income of the
deceased on higher side without any evidence on record. Hence,
requested to allow the appeal.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondents-
Claimants that the deceased was taxi driver and he was earning
Rs.2500/- per month, but the Tribunal has considered his monthly
income at Rs.2000/-, which is proper. Learned counsel further
submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded consortium amount, it
be awarded, and requested to dismiss the appeal.
4. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the judgment
and order passed by the Tribunal.
5. While deciding issue of income, the Tribunal has observed
that as per the evidence of the Claimants, the deceased was working
Shantanu S. Dhudum 2/4
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:06:02 :::
6-FA-803-2003 JUDGMENT.doc
as a carpenter mistry with PW2 - Dilip Dagla, and he was also plying
the taxi, but no evidence is produced on record on that basis the
Tribunal has considered monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.2000/- . I do not find infirmity in it.
6. In my view, the deceased was plying taxi. He was skilled
worker as a taxi driver, and he was maintaining family of four
persons, therefore, the income considered by the Tribunal is proper.
While awarding compensation, the Tribunal has awarded consortium
amount on lower side. As per view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram 2018
ACJ2782 (SC), each claimant is entitled Rs.48,000/- as consortium
amount, Rs.18,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/- for loss of
estate. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,500/- under the consortium
amounts, if this amount deducts from Rs.2,28,000/- which is
considered by this Court, it would come to Rs.2,18,500/-.
7. In view of above, I pass following order :
ORDER
i. The Appeal is dismissed.
ii. The Claimants are entitled enhanced amount of
Rs.2,18,500/- @ 7.5% interest per annum from 1st
6-FA-803-2003 JUDGMENT.doc
November, 2017, till realization of the amount.
iii. The Appellant - Corporation shall deposit the
enhanced amount along with accrued interest
thereon, within six weeks after receipt of this
order.
iv. The Claimants are permitted to withdraw
deposited amount along with accrued interest
thereon.
v. The Claimants shall pay the deficit Court fees on
enhanced amount, if any, as per Rules.
vi. The statutory amount be transmitted to the
Tribunal along with accrued interest thereon. The
parties are at liberty to withdraw it, as per Rules.
vii. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the
Tribunal.
8. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
