Bombay High Court
Padminibai Raosaheb Dendre And Ors vs Subjan Ali Gowlani S/O Ameer Ali Gowlani ... on 27 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:32605
FA-1051-2012.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1051 OF 2012
1. Padminbai w/o Raosaheb Kendre,
Age: 49 years, Occu. Household,
2. Sandeep s/o Raosaheb Kendre,
Age: 24 years, Occu. Agri.,
3. Shankar s/o Govinda Kendre,
Age: 77 years, Occu. Nil,
All R/o: Nagdarwadi, Post. Malakoli, ...Appellants
Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded. (Orig. Claimants)
Versus
1. Subjan Ali Gowlani S/o Ameer Ali Gowlani
Age: 40 years, Occu. Business,
R/o: 3-9-281, Gandhi Chowk,
Adilabad, Tq & Dist. Adilabad.
(A.P. State)
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd,
Through its Branch Manager,
Branch at Adilabad (A.P.)
3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Through its Branch Manager,
Branch at Nanded,
Tq & Dist. Nanded.
4. Kusumbai w/o Raosaheb Kendre (alleged)
Age Major, Occu. Unknown,
R/o: Gudihatnoor, Tq & Dist. Adilabad (A.P)
[Respondent No. 4 is formal party ...Respondents
Therefore notice is not required]
...
Mr. H. I. Pathan, Advocate for Appellants
Mr. A. G. Kanade, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
...
Page 1 of 6
FA-1051-2012.odt
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : NOVEMBER 25, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : NOVEMBER 27, 2025
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded vide
judgment and order dated 20.10.2010 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.
646/2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kandhar, Dist.
Nanded, original claimants preferred instant appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation primarily on the ground of inadequate compensation.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that, appellants are
original claimants and they have instituted proceedings under Section 166
of Motor Vehicles Act before MACT, Kandhar on account of death of
Raosaheb Shankar Kendre, who was proceeding on motorcycle with his
friend Maruti and they had been given a dash by truck bearing no. AP-01/T-
7374 coming from Adilabad side. Therefore, on account of fatal injuries and
death, above claim petition was set up seeking compensation to the tune of
Rs. 4,00,000/-.
After appreciating the case of claimants as well as hearing
respondents, learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim
directing respondent nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation of Rs. 2,67,000/- @ 7% rate of interest.
FA-1051-2012.odt
Dissatisfied by the above quantum, instant Appeal has been
filed on various grounds raised in the appeal memo.
3. Sum and substance of the arguments raised by learned counsel
for appellants is that, deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle and the said
motorcycle was given dash by offending truck and crime was registered
against truck driver. That, after complete appreciation of documentary
evidence, learned Tribunal had recorded findings that there was rashness
and negligence on the part of truck driver. He would further submit that
claimants, by virtue of previous orders, modified the initial claim and raised
it to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/-. He pointed out that deceased was truck
driver, however, learned Tribunal failed to consider and appreciate the same
and on the ground of no evidence in that regard, disbelieved such
occupation of the deceased and considered the deceased to be labour and
Rs. 100/- daily wages, compensation has been derived and arrived. He point
out that even daily wage worker earns at least Rs. 250/- per day and as
such, earns Rs. 7,500/- per month. That, at least same ought to have been
considered but learned Tribunal failed to do so.
4. He point out that here respondent insurance company has not
controverted the alleged occupation of deceased and neither there was any
suggestion in the cross. Therefore, it is his submission that learned Tribunal
ought to have accepted the deceased to be working as truck driver and
FA-1051-2012.odt
ought to have granted compensation accordingly. He further point out that
even learned Tribunal failed to grant compensation under heads of love and
affection, loss of estate and loss of consortium and even amount granted
towards funeral expenses is meager and, therefore, he urges to grant the
same in appeal and thereby enhance the amount of compensation.
5. In answer to above, learned counsel for respondents would
point out that there was no evidence about deceased to be working as driver
and no driving license was placed on record and, therefore, according to
him, no fault can be found on the part of learned Tribunal in refusing to
accept the case of claimants that deceased works as truck driver. According
to him, learned Tribunal has passed well reasoned order and he took this
Court through paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 and would submit that
computation of compensation is just and proper and, therefore, he urges for
not to interfere in the impugned judgment and order.
6. Heard. Perused the record as well as impugned judgment.
Present appeal is only for enhancement of compensation. Neither negligence
nor findings recorded to that extent by Tribunal are questioned here.
Precisely submissions made before this Court are that deceased was working
as driver and, therefore, fault is found on the part of Tribunal for not
considering the same. However, admittedly, except submissions to that
extent in the claim petition, there was no distinct evidence that deceased
FA-1051-2012.odt
was employed as driver. Even on Court's query, learned counsel pointed out
that there is no license to demonstrate that deceased was pursuing such
occupation. Therefore, no fault can be found on the part of Tribunal in
holding that claimants failed to prove alleged occupation of deceased.
However, as pointed out, learned Tribunal has considered deceased to be a
labour and has made computation by considering his daily wages to the
tune of Rs. 100/-. Such consideration is apparently on lower side. Even in
the year 2004, daily wage earner might be earning more than that.
Therefore, it would be just and proper to consider daily wage of the
deceased to the tune of Rs. 350/-. Hence, monthly income of the deceased
comes to Rs. 10,500/- and annual income comes to Rs. 1,26,000/-.
7. In view of the ratio laid down in National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. , 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1270 ; Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others ,
(2018) 18 SCC 130 and Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Others , (2003) 2
SCC 274, claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each, i.e. 1,20,000/-
towards loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.
5,000/- towards funeral expenses.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, claimants are entitled for
following compensation:
FA-1051-2012.odt
Sr. Heads Amount (Rs.)
No.
1. Annual Income (Rs. 10,500 X 12) Rs. 1,26,000/- 10,92,000/-
rd
(-) Rs.42,000 1/3 deduction towards personal
expenses = Rs.84,000/-
Rs. 84,000 x 13 multiplier = Rs. 10,92,000/-
2. Loss of consortium 1,20,000/-
3. Loss of estate 10,000/-
4. Funeral expenses 5,000/-
5. Total compensation to be paid Rs. 12,27,000/-
6. Compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs. 2,67,000/-
7. Total enhanced compensation Rs. 9,60,000/-
(Rs. 15,00,000 (-) Rs. 2,67,000)
9. In the result, following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs.
(ii) Impugned judgment and award dated 20.10.2010 in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No. 646/2010 passed by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Kandhar, Dist. Nanded is
modified.
(iii) Respondent nos. 1 to 3 to pay enhanced compensation of
Rs. 9,60,000/- to claimants within 12 weeks from today
along with interest @ 7% 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, appellants/claimants are
permitted to withdraw the same.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Malani
