Bombay High Court
I.C.I.C.I Lombard Motor ... vs Smt. Geeta Wd/O Nitesh @ Nitin Wankhede ... on 18 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12633
1 FA 692.13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.692 0F 2013
I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Motor Insurance
Civil Lines, Chandrapur Branch,
Chandrapur, through Branch
Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Lombard
General Insurance Company Ltd.
5th Floor, Landmark, Plot No. 56,
Wardha Road, Ramdaspeth,
Nagpur-10. .. Appellant
VERSUS
1. Smt. Geeta wd/o Nitesh @ Nitin
Wankhede, Aged 31 years,
Occ. : Household,
2. Ku. Ayushi D/o Nilesh @ Nitin
Wankhede, Aged 7 years,
through non-applicant no.1
3. Smt. Laijabai W/o Kachru Wankhede, (Deleted)
Age 71 years, Occ. : Household,
All R/o.C/o. Smt. Vanita S. Upre,
Virur Station, Talulka Rajura,
District : Chandrapur.
4. C. Abraham Vattakuzhiyil,
Age: Major, Occ.: Driver cum
Business, R/o. Saint Annne General
Stored, Arjuna Complex, Old Bus
Stand, Near Hotel Arjun Bar and
Restaurant, Allapalli Road, Ballarpur,
District : Chandrapur. .. Respondents
2 FA 692.13
Shri R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri S.R. Charpe, Advocate for Respondent No.1 to 3.
Shri Sumit R. Mendiretta, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION NO.15 OF 2015
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.692 OF 2013
1. Smt. Geeta wd/o Nitesh @ Nitin
Wankhede, Aged about 31 years,
Occ : Household,
2. Ku. Ayushi D/o Nilesh @ Nitin
Wankhede, Aged about 7 years,
Occ : Nil
3. Smt. Laijabai w/o Kachru Wankhede, (Deleted)
Aged about 71 years, Occ : Household,
Respondent No.1 for herself and
mother guardian for respondent
No.2, All R/o.C/o. Vanita S. Dupare,
Virur Station, Taluka Rajura,
District : Chandrapur. .. Cross Objectors/
Respondents
VERSUS
1. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Motor Insurance
Civil Line, Chandrapur,
Through Branch Manager,
I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General
Insurance Company Ltd.
5th Floor, Landmark, Plot No. 56,
Wardha Road, Ramdaspeth,
Nagpur.
3 FA 692.13
2. C. Abraham Vattakuzhiyil,
Age : Major, Occ.: Driver cum
Business, R/o. 9/2 , Integrated
Unit Colony (Forest), Ballarpur and
Owner of Scorpio bearing
registration no. MH-34/K-3540.. Respondents
Shri S.R. Charpe, Advocate for Cross Objectors.
Shri R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Shri Sumit R. Mendiretta, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATED : 18.11.2025
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of present appeal, the challenge is to the
judgment and order dated 29.4.2013 passed by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.144/2007 with Cross-Objection
No.15/2015.
2. In the present appeal No.692/2013 the insurance
company has challenged the judgment and order passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur on two
grounds, firstly, that the licence of the driver of offending
vehicle (Exh.44) produced by the claimants before the
4 FA 692.13
Tribunal was fake and, therefore, same should not have
been relied upon by the learned Tribunal and secondly, the
calculation made by the learned Tribunal towards the
compensation is not proper. Hence, on these two grounds,
the appeal is filed before this court.
3. In cross-objection, the claimants/cross-objector
raised a grievance that though the claimants had produced
sufficient evidence on record to demonstrate that the
earning of the claimant was Rs.10,000/- per month, same
was not considered properly and thereby awarded the less
compensation. It is further stated that the proper
multiplier is not made applicable by considering the age of
the deceased. On these grounds, cross-objection filed
before this court.
4. Both the matters being arising out of the same
judgment, I am deciding both the matters by this common
judgment.
5. At the outset, it is stated that the whole
controversy in the present appeal is revolving around the
5 FA 692.13
fact that the driving licence of the driver of offending
vehicle was fake document produced by the claimants
before the Tribunal.
6. In view of this factual aspect, the owner of the
vehicle i.e. respondent no.4 in First Appeal No.692/2013
filed Civil Application No.2728/2019 before this court
stating that by invoking the powers under Order 41, Rule
27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he may be permitted to
produce the additional documents on record i.e. the copy
of driving licence of the driver issued by the office of
Regional Transport Officer, Chandrapur. So also he has
produced on record the extract of the driving licence issued
by the Deputy Regional Transport Officer, Chandrapur
dated 2.7.2014 to establish the fact that the driver was
holding the valid licence till 29.11.2020. On filing of this
application, this court by order dated 15.2.2021 observed
that the licence produced by the respondent no.4 being
issued by the competent authority, the appellant-insurance
company has an opportunity to ascertain the authenticity of
the said licence and accordingly the matter was adjourned.
6 FA 692.13
In the further order dated 9.3.2021, the matter was further
adjourned to enable the appellant to seek necessary
instructions and make a statement as regards to the
admissibility of the licence. However, the record shows that
the insurance company did not made any statement before
this court about the admissibility and hence this application
remain pending on the file of this court.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Wadi .vs. Amilal and others, reported
in 2015 (1) SCC 677 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has observed in para 5 as under :
"5. Now it is clear that Rule 27 deals with
production of additional evidence in the appellate
court. The general principle incorporated in sub-
rule (1) is that the parties to an appeal are not
entitled to produce additional evidence (oral or
documentary) in the appellate court to cure a
lacuna or fill up a gap in a case. The exceptions to
that principle are enumerated thereunder in
clauses (a), (aa) and (b). We are concerned here
with clause (b) which is an enabling provision. It
says that if the appellate court requires any
document to be produced or any witness to be
examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, it
may allow such document to be produced or
witness to be examined. The requirement or need
is that of the appellate court bearing in mind that
the interest of justice is paramount. If it feels that
7 FA 692.13
pronouncing a judgment in the absence of such
evidence would result in a defective decision and
to pronounce an effective judgment admission of
such evidence is necessary, clause (b) enables it to
adopt that course. Invocation of clause (b) does not
depend upon the vigilance or negligence of the
parties for it is not meant for them. It is for the
appellant to resort to it when on a consideration of
the material or record it feels that admission of
additional evidence is necessary to pronounce a
satisfactory judgment in the case."
8. So also it will be expedient to refer the other
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sanjay Kumar Singh .vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in
AIR 2022 SC 1372, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has observed in para 4 as under :
"4. It is true that the general principle is that
the appellate court should not travel outside the
record of the lower court and cannot take any
evidence in appeal. However, as an exception,
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate
court to take additional evidence in exceptional
circumstances. It may also be true that the
appellate court may permit additional evidence
if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found
to exist and the parties are not entitled, as of
right, to the admission of such evidence.
However, at the same time, where the additional
evidence sought to be adduced removes the
cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence
has a direct and important bearing on the main
issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly
renders it imperative that it may be allowed to
be permitted on record, such application may be
allowed. Even, one of the circumstances in
which the production of additional evidence
8 FA 692.13
under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by the appellate
court is to be considered is, whether or not the
appellate court requires the additional evidence
so as to enable it to pronouncement judgment or
for any other substantial cause of like nature. As
observed and held by this Court in the case of A.
Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar,
reported in (2015) 17 SCC 713: (AIR 2016 SC
79), the admissibility of additional evidence does
not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on
hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had
an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an
earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether
or not the appellate court requires the evidence
sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce
judgment or for any other substantial cause. It is
further observed that the true test, therefore is,
whether the appellate court is able to pronounce
judgment on the materials before it without
taking into consideration the additional evidence
sought to be adduced."
9. After going through both the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is clear that if the court
want to examine any documents which are enable it to
pronouncement of judgment, it may allow such documents
to be produced because the interest of justice is paramount
while dealing with such application. So also it is held that if
the documents which the party want to produce as an
additional evidence on record and it is having some bearing
to decide the pending proceeding and it is helpful to
pronounce judgment and for substantial cause, then in
9 FA 692.13
such circumstances such application are always to be
allowed.
10. In the present case, admittedly the proceedings
are arising out of the Motor Vehicles Act. This act being a
beneficial legislation and it is the duty of the court to see
that the claimants who are ultimately the sufferer due to
the road accident of the earning member of the family
should get justice as early as possible. I am of the opinion
that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, it will be justified in the present matter to
allow Civil Application No.2728/2019 and considering the
fact that documents produced by the respondent no.4
prima facie authentic as same were obtained from the
Regional Transport Office, Chandrapur.
11. Reverting back to the fact of the present appeal,
it is admitted fact that on 15.7.2007 deceased Nitesh alias
Nitin s/o Kachru Wankhede went with Rajiv Narayan
Wankar for official work. On that day, when they were
returning back by motorcycle, the offending vehicle which
was coming from other side lost the control and gave
10 FA 692.13
terrible dash to the motorcycle of the deceased. In view of
that dash the deceased as well as Rajiv Wankar fell down
on the road. The deceased due to fatal injuries on his
head and other parts of the body was referred to the
Government Hospital, Ballarsha. But looking towards his
seriousness, he was referred to General Hospital,
Chandrapur. On examination by the Doctor he was
declared dead.
12. The claimants who are legal heirs of the
deceased filed Claim Petition before the Tribunal stating
thereby that the deceased was running one welding unit
which was duly certified under the provisions of the
Bombay Shop and Establishment Act. He was having a
Trade Certificate of Welder and, therefore, his earning was
near about Rs.10,000/- per month. Accordingly, they have
claimed the compensation of amount of Rs.8,00,000/-
before the Tribunal.
13. It is further stated, after occurrence of incident,
the police case was registered against the driver of the
offending vehicle. During the course of investigation,
11 FA 692.13
police machinery has collected the documents and
registered the case against the driver of the offending
vehicle. The claimants before the Tribunal has collected the
said documents and produced the same before the Tribunal
in Claim Petition. Accordingly, the documents (Exh.44)
placed on record which was obtained by them from the
police investigating officer. In response to the notice issued
by the Tribunal, the insurance company appeared before
the Tribunal and took a stand that the driving licence
which is produced by the claimants of the driver of the
offending vehicle is fake and illegal.
14. On behalf of the claimants, the cross-objector
no.1 Geeta wd/o Nitesh @ Nitin Wankhede (Exh.22)
entered into the witness box to prove her case and one
Rajiv Wankar (Exh.46), who was eyewitness/pillion rider
of the incident. On behalf of the respondent-insurance
company, the evidence of Sachin Laxmanrao Kale was
recorded who was working as a Junior Clerk in the office of
Deputy Sub-Regional Transport Office, Chandrapur.
12 FA 692.13
15. In the light of above said factual position, the
learned Tribunal has held that the claimants have failed to
prove his monthly income as Rs.10,000/- and thereby
considered his monthly income at the rate of Rs.4,500/-
only. The learned Tribunal in respect of the fake licence,
held that in view of the driving licence produced from the
police record, same is treated as a valid driving licence at
the relevant time and accordingly awarded the
compensation of Rs.6,55,000/- along with the statutory
benefits to the claimants.
16. In the background of above said factual position,
in the present appeal, the issue raised by the appellant-
insurance company is that the learned Tribunal has
committed an error by relying upon the driving licence
(Exh.44) which if seen from naked eyes, there is
manipulation over the same. Hence, the insurance
company in such circumstances ought to have exonerated
from the payment of compensation in the matter. The
owner of the vehicle is only responsible for the payment of
compensation in the matter.
13 FA 692.13
17. In the present appeal, as stated above, the
respondent no.4, owner has taken certain pains and
produced on record the driving licence of the driver of
offending vehicle and to support the same has also
obtained the extract of driving licence from the office of
Deputy Regional Transport Office, Chandrapur dated
2.7.2014. If these documents are perused carefully, I am
of the opinion that the driving licence produced by the
respondent no.4 is prima facie seems to be authentic in the
matter. Furthermore, same driving licence seems to be
valid till 29.11.2020. As such, considering this documents
which is now made available on record, I am of the opinion
that the issue regarding validity of licence is now settled
down and, therefore, I hold that the driver of the offending
vehicle was holding the valid licence at the time of
accident.
18. In respect of calculation towards the
compensation, the counsel for the cross-objector states that
the annual income of the deceased ought to have been
14 FA 692.13
considered Rs.95,000/- per annum, whereas, the counsel
for the insurance company states that there is no cogent
evidence available on record to reach to the conclusion that
the deceased was having the earning of Rs.95,000/- per
annum. According to the insurance company, except the
certificates, nothing was placed on record as to what was
the income of the shop, whether the necessary taxes were
paid by the appellant or the account was properly
maintained or not, is not produced before the Tribunal.
Therefore, the amount claimed by the claimants is
exorbitant.
19. The learned counsel for the cross-objector has
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Kala Devi and Others .vs. Bhagwan
Chauhan and Others , reported in 2015 (2) SCC 771 .
According to him, in the said appeal the accident was of
year 2003 and the deceased was merely a driver of the
vehicle. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering
the fact that he was a driver and as per the Minimum
Wages Act, his monthly income was considered Rs.9,000/-
15 FA 692.13
and accordingly granted compensation in the matter.
Applying the said yardstick, it is the submission of the
cross-objector that in the present case, admittedly the
deceased was running the welding shop. The shop was
duly registered under the Bombay Shop and Establishment
Act. The deceased was having the trade certificate as a
welder. It is also pointed out that he was the only earning
member in the family and from his earning he has
purchased the plot on 12.1.2006 and in his account
recently he has deposited Rs.83,600/-. Hence, according to
me, considering this aspect, his monthly income ought to
have been consider at higher side by the learned Tribunal.
20. After going through the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India and the documents which cross-
objector placed on record, I am of the opinion that the
monthly income of the deceased can be considered at the
rate of Rs.7,000/-. Accordingly, as per the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla
Verma (Smt) and others .vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National
16 FA 692.13
Insurance Company Limited .vs. Pranay Sethi and others,
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the cross-objector will be
entitled for the compensation as under :
Monthly Income of Deceased Rs. 7,000/-
Annual Income (Rs.7,000 x 12 Months) Rs. 84,000/-
Add- Future Prospects (Addition 40%) Rs. 33,600/-
Annual Income after adding future prospects Rs. 1,17,600/-
(Rs. 84,000 + 33,600)
Less- One Third deduction (Rs. 1,17,600-1/3) Rs. 39, 200/-
Amount comes to Rs. 78,400/-
Add- Multiplier '17' as per Sarla Verma Rs. 13,32,800/-
(Rs. 78,400 x 17)
Add- Consortium (Rs. 40,000 x 3) Rs.1,20,000/-
Add- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
Add- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.14,82,800/-
21. In view of above, the interference of this court is
necessary in the judgment and order passed by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur dated
29.4.2013. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
1) The Appeal as well as Cross-Objection
is partly allowed.
2) It is declared that the claimants/cross-
objectors are entitled for the compensation of
17 FA 692.13
Rs.14,82,800/- including no fault amount with interest at
the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the
Claim Petition i.e. 17.08.2007, till realization of the same.
3) The rest of the judgment and order is
hereby confirmed.
4) The appellant-insurance company is
hereby directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
amount to the Registry of this court within a period of
three months.
5) The claimants-cross-objectors are
permitted to withdraw the same after deposit of amount by
the insurance company before this court subject to
satisfaction of Registrar (Judicial).
(Pravin S. Patil, J.)
Gulande
Signed by: A.S. GULANDE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/11/2025 16:21:13
