Bombay High Court
Govind Shivram Wagh And Ors vs The Divisional Controller Maharashtra ... on 29 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:30067
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1369 OF 2016
Divisional Controller
Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation
Division Office, At Aurangabad
.....APPELLANT
(Original Respondent no.1)
VERSUS
1. Govind s/o Shivram Wagh,
Age 45 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Talni, Tq. Silod,
District - Aurangabad
2. Janabai w/o Shivram Wagh,
Age 41 yrs Occu. Nil,
R/o Talni, Tq. Silod,
District - Aurangabad
3. Ashwini d/o Govind Wagh,
Age 18 yrs, Occu. Student
R/o Talni, Tq. Silod,
District - Aurangabad
.....RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3
(Original claimants)
4. Shaikh Akheel s/o Shaikh Lal
Age Major, Occu. Driver,
R/o Bhatana, Tq. Vaijapur,
District - Aurangabad.
.....RESPONDENT NO.4
(Original respondent no.2)
WITH
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
2
CROSS OBJECTION NO.200 OF 2025
1. Govind s/o Shivram Wagh,
Age 45 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Talni, Tq. Silod,
District - Aurangabad
2. Janabai w/o Shivram Wagh,
Age 41 yrs Occu. Nil,
R/o Talni, Tq. Silod,
District - Aurangabad
3. Ashwini d/o Govind Wagh,
Age 18 yrs, Occu. Student
R/o Talni, Tq. Silod,
District - Aurangabad
.....OBJECTION PETITIONERS
(Original claimants)
VERSUS
1. Divisional Controller
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
Opposite to Employment Office, Aurangabad
Taluka & District Aurangabad
2. Shaikh Akheel S/o Shaikh Lal
Age: Major Occu: Driver
R/o Bhatana Tq: Vaijapur,
District: Aurangabad
.....RESPONDENTS
(Resp. No.1-Appellant
Resp. No.2-Original respondent no.2)
______________________________________________________
Ms. Ranjana D. Reddy, Advocate for the appellants in First
Appeal (MSRTC)
Mr. M. R. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 3
in First Appeal (Claimants)
______________________________________________________
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
3
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 16TH OCTOBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 29TH OCTOBER, 2025
JUDGMENT :
- (Per Court)
. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award
dated 31.12.2015, passed by the learned Member, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.241 of 2015, the original respondent
no.1/M.S.R.T.C. is in appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.
So also, feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation, the claimants in the claim petition are before
this Court seeking enhancement in the compensation vide
Cross Objection No.200 of 2025.
Since the grievance in both the proceedings is
common i.e. "quantum : either excess or deficit" respectively,
both the matters are heard together and decided vide this
common judgment and order.
Parties are referred to as per their "factual status"
for the sake of convenience.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
2. Moot points for consideration:
(i) Applicability of future prospects to deemed income;
(ii) Interest of future prospect;
(iii) Ascertaining income of a student of professional
course;
(iv) Method to assess age of the deceased and appreciation
of evidence to that effect.
3. Facts in brief:
3.1 One Ganesh Wagh was proceeding on his bike on
25.02.2015 on Sillod-Aurangabad road at bout 07:00 p.m. A
passenger bus owned by M.S.R.T.C. driven by respondent no.4
in the First Appeal dashed the said bike, to which biker
namely Ganesh Wagh succumbed. Deceased Ganesh was a
meritorious student prosecuting his final year studies in the
course of M.B.B.S. at Government Medical College,
Aurangabad. The claimants lodged the claim for grant of
compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
3.2 Upon hearing both the parties, the learned
Tribunal held that the Bus driver was responsible to cause the
accident. As such, full liability of accident was imposed on the
bus driver.
3.3 So far as quantum is concern, the claimants
examined one Dr. Umeshkumar Shahane (CW-2) at Exhibit-
31 to prove the probable income of the deceased which he
could earn soon after clearing M.B.B.S. course. Dr. Shahane
had been classmate of the deceased Ganesh and was earning
Rs.56,540/- per month salary as Medical Officer in ESIS
Hospital. Appointment order and salary slip of Dr. Shahane
was proved.
3.4 Placing reliance on the evidence tendered by Dr.
Shahane, the claimants averred that income of deceased
Ganesh be held atleast @ Rs.56,000/- per month.
3.5 It seems that the MSRTC opposed such argument
and submitted that income of deceased Ganesh Wagh cannot
be assumed so high considering the state of uncertainty in the
life of a person.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
3.6 Upon hearing both the parties, the learned
Tribunal formed opinion that merely because Dr. Shahane was
classmate of deceased Ganesh and was getting salary of
Rs.56,540/- per month, it cannot be said that deceased
Ganesh would also have earned the same job and same salary.
Learned Member of the Tribunal opined that it would be fair
and reasonable if income of the deceased could be held as
Rs.35,000/- per month.
3.7 As such, holding income of the deceased
@Rs.35,000/- per month, granting 50% of it towards 'Future
Prospects' the annual income of the deceased was held
@Rs.6,30,000/-. 50 % of the income was deducted towards
personal expenses, as the deceased was a bachelor. Although,
the Aadhaar Card and SSC/HSC certificate of the deceased
Ganesh were on record showing his age as 24, the learned
Tribunal held his age at 27 years referring to the Post Mortem
Report and Inquest Panchnama. Hence, applying multiplier of
M-17, the learned Tribunal fixed the loss of dependency
@Rs.53,55,000/-. The learned Tribunal added Rs.1,00,000/-
towards loss of love and affection and conventional expenses
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
As such, the final compensation arrived
@Rs.54,80,000/- inclusive of compensation payable under No
Fault Liability.
4. Moot points raised by the parties:
4.1 MSRTC would object that Ld. Tribunal ought not
to have added the component of 'Future Prospects' in the
income of the deceased as his income was held on notional
basis.
4.2 MSRTC also objects that interest could not have
been applied on the 'Future Prospects'.
4.3 Claimants raised grievance that Ld. Tribunal
erred in holding income of the deceased on lower side. That,
in view of the evidence tendered, Ganesh's income ought to
have been held atleast @ Rs.56,000/- p.m.
4.4 Claimants also object that Ld. Tribunal applied
multiplier M-17 instead of M-18 without considering the
evidence on record showing correct age of the deceased.
Both the parties while justifying their respective
objections, also countered each-other's too.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
5. Points framed:
On the basis of the objections raised by the
respective sides, I frame following points for consideration:
5.1 Whether Ld. Tribunal is justified in adding Future Yes
Prospects while computing the Award?
5.2 Whether Ld. Tribunal is justified in applying interest Yes
on Future Prospects?
5.3 Whether Ld. Tribunal is justified in applying No.
multiplier of M-17 instead of M-18?
5.4 Whether income of the deceased needs to be held on Yes
higher side, and whether the compensation has to be
enhanced?
5.5 What order? As per final
order.
Now I shall deal on each point of objection
recording the debate advanced by both the Ld.Counsels for
the respective parties. The parties have taken me to the record
and proceeding to convince their arguments.
Discussion & findings
5.1 Addition of Future Prospects:
5.1.1. Smt. Ranjana Reddy, learned Advocate for the
MSRTC has strong objection to the application of 'Future
Prospects' in the present case. She would further submit that
the deceased falls from the category of non earning persons
who had no established income.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
She would refer to the findings rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others , reported in 2017 SCC
Online SC 12710 at its paragraph nos.59.3 and 59.4, which
are reproduced as follows:
59.3. While determining the income, an addition
of 50% of actual salary to the income of the
deceased towards future prospects, where the
deceased had a permanent job and was below the
age of 40 years, should be made. The addition
should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was
between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was
between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition
should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as
actual salary less tax.
59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or
on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the
established income should be the warrant where
the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An
addition of 25% where the deceased was between
the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years
should be regarded as the necessary method of
computation. The established income means the
income minus the tax component.
5.1.2 Smt. Reddy, learned Advocate was at pains to
convince me that in view of the clear wording in Pranay
Sethi's case (supra), the concept of Future Prospects could be
applicable only in respect of the persons who have established
income.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
5.1.3 She would submit that as the deceased was not
having any income, and as the learned Tribunal has held his
income on notional basis. Future Prospects could not have
been applied in this case. She would refer one judgment
rendered by High Court of Allahabad, reported in LAWS(All-
2023-5-223). However, upon appraising her that the facts in
the cited case and the present one are absolutely
distinguishable, Smt. Reddy, would fairly submit that
although she has cited this judgment, it may not be useful as
facts in both the cases are different. With this argument, Smt.
Reddy, learned Advocate would submit that the Future
Prospects ought not to have applied in this case.
5.1.4 Mr. Mohit Deshmukh learned Advocate for the
claimants supports the finding of the learned Tribunal by
which the learned Tribunal has added the component of
Future Prospects while computing the compensation. He
objects that in 'Pranay Sethi' case (supra) the Hon. Supreme
Court held only the persons whose income is established, to
be entitled for Future Prospects. Mr. Deshmukh would refer to
the Paragraph No.55 in 'Pranay Sethi's judgment which is
reproduced as follows:-
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
"55. Section 168 of the Act deals with the
concept of "Just compensation" and the same has
to be determined on the foundation of fairness,
reasonableness and equitability on acceptable
legal standard because such determination can
never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never
be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable
degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on
the basis of materials brought on record in an
individual case. The conception of "just
compensation" has to be viewed through the
prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-
violation of the principle of equitability. In a case
of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot
expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the
compensation granted cannot be an apology for
compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though
the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide,
yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to
be guided by the expression, that is, "just
compensation". The determination has to be on
the foundation of evidence brought on record as
regards the age and income of the deceased and
thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied.
The formula relating to multiplier has been
clearly stated in Sarla Verma and it has been
approved in Reshma Kumari. The age and
income, as stated earlier, have to be established
by adducing evidence. The tribunal and the
courts have to bear in mind that the basic
principle lies in pragmatic computation which is
in proximity to reality. It is a well-accepted norm
that money cannot substitute a life lost but an
effort has to be made for grant of just
compensation having uniformity of approach.
There has to be a balance between the two
extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a
bonanza and the modicum. In such an
adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the
courts is difficult and hence, an endeavor has
been made by this Court for standardization
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
which in its ambit includes addition of future
prospects on the proven income at present. As far
as future prospects are concerned, there has been
standardization keeping in view the principle of
certainty, stability and consistency. We approve
the principle of "standardization" so that a
specific and certain multiplicand is determined
for applying the multiplier on the basis of age"
With this, Mr. Mohit Deshmukh would submit
that it would be inappropriate to discriminate different classes
of persons while applying the Future Prospects component.
Mr. Deshmukh would however fairly submit that the correct
future prospects would be 40%, but not 50% as the income of
the deceased Ganesh Wagh was not to be considered as a
fixed salaried income.
5.1.5 My findings:
(a) Future Prospects is not any allowance nor any
add-on benefit depending upon any qualification. Indeed its a
principles of 'standardization' in view of Certainty, Stability
and Consistency. Application of Future Prospects as
introduced by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of 'Pranay
Sethi' can not be confined only in respect of particular class of
persons unlike argued by the MSRTC.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
The logic and analogy applied in 'Pranay Sethi'
case is not at all narrow to restrict benefit of Future Prospects
to a particular class of persons. In 'Pranay Sethi' the Hon.
Supreme Court has clarified that "The established income
means the income minus the tax component" (emph.).
I don't accept the argument advanced by Smt.
Reddy that 'persons with established income' is a privileged
category entitle for the benefit of Future Prospects component.
(b) A profitable reference could be made to the view
expressed by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Kavita
Nagar and Others Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd
(Civil Appeal No. 10632 of 2024) Their Lordships have held
that there cannot be discrimination in the categories of the
claimants to deny or apply the component of Future Prospects.
The relevant paragraphs in the case of Kavita Nagar are
reproduced as follows:
14. The need to factor in future prospects when
determining compensation becomes even clearer
and more pressing when considering the basic
human drive to sustain and improve one's life. A
self-employed individual, just like someone on a
fixed salary,strives to increase their income to
meet growing expenses and to adapt to changing
circumstances. This is particularly important
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
when considering the purchasing power and
quality of life, which tend to increase as a
person's career progresses. The notion that a self-
employed person's income will remain static is
flawed, as they, too, make efforts to raise their
fees or charges to keep pace with inflation and
market demands. For instance, someone working
in a government role or another fixed-income job
might receive annual salary adjustments or
benefits,reflecting a growth trajectory over time.
Similarly, a self-employed professional--such as a
doctor, lawyer,or small business owner--will
often increase fees or expand services to keep
pace with rising costs. Recognizing these future
prospects ensures a fair and just compensation by
aligning with real-world economic dynamics,
which Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988
seeks to uphold.
15. This drive to improve one's income is
universal,regardless of the employment status,
and should be reflected in the compensation
calculations for motor accident claims. As the
precedent in the quoted judgment suggests, it is
unjust to disregard future prospects solely based
on the perceived static nature of the income.
Instead, a degree-test should be applied,
accounting for factors like age, career growth,
and economic conditions, ensuring fair
compensation that reflects the individual's true
earning potential over time.
Thus, it is no more in res integra that the Future
Prospects are to be given in every death case irrespective of
the category of the claimant i.e. earning, non earning,
established income, non established income, etc.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
(c) In Kirti and Another Vs Oriental Insurance
Company reported at (2021) 2 SCC 166, a Three Judge Bench
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issue of
entitlement of future prospects in a claim on account of the
death of a homemaker who is a non earning member. It is
pertinent to note that applying the principles laid down by the
Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), the Apex Court
applied future prospects at 40%.
(d) As such, I hold the learned Tribunal is absolutely
justified in adding Future Prospects while computing the
compensation. Rather, exclusion to add Future Prospects
would result in grave miscarriage of justice. However
considering that the compensation is being granted on
deemed income of the deceased, the Future Prospects would
be @ 40%, but not 50% as correctly pointed out by Mr. Mohit
Deshmukh, ld. Advocate for the claimants.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
5.2 Interest of Future Prospects:-
5.2.1 Smt. Reddy Ld. Advocate for the MSRTC objects
that interest on the Future Prospects cannot be granted. She
would submit that the Future Prospects itself is such income
which is not in existence nor ever existed, interest may not be
applied over the Future Prospects.
5.2.2 Mr. Mohit Deshmukh Ld. Counsel representing
the Claimants would however submit that it has been clarified
by the Hon. Supreme Court that the Future Prospects has been
held as part and parcel of the income of the deceased on the
principles of Standardization. As such, interest must be
applied even on the Future Prospects.
5.2.3 My findings:
(a) Once the Future Prospects is to be added in the
income of the deceased, the interest would equally be
applicable on such income. An objection to the application of
interest on Future Prospects won't survive in the light of the
view taken by the Hon. Supreme court in the case of Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika and Ors. , [2025
INSC 822] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed
that the entire award amount as to be paid with interest.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
The entire award necessarily meant the
component of Future Prospects too. As such, the objection of
the MSRTC on the point of interest on Future Prospects also
cannot be sustained.
As such I find that compensation granted for the
component of Future Prospects would also carry interest. The
Ld. Tribunal has not committed any error while granting
interest even on the future prospects.
5.3 Multiplier:
Both the parties have different objections on the
point of 'Multiplier' which are dealt as follows.
5.3.1 Smt. Reddy, learned Advocate submits that
multiplier has to be corresponding to the age of the parents,
but not corresponding to the age of the deceased. She would
submit that the age of Claimants or Deceased, whichever
higher has to be considered for fixing the multiplier.
5.3.2 To answer this objection, Mr. Mohit Deshmukh,
learned Advocate placed reliance upon a judgment and order
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haresh
Shantilal Avlani and Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Company
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
Ltd., reported in (2024) 13 SCC 452, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court approved the age of the deceased to fix the
multiplier in the case of death of a bachelor. A profitable
reference to the paragraph no.5 of the said judgment can be
made, which is reproduced as follows:
"5. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is the age
of the deceased which ought to be taken into
consideration and not the age of the dependants for
arriving at the multiplier and the High Court has erred
in returning findings to the effect that the age of
dependents of the deceased ought to be the relevant
consideration for arriving at the choice of the
multiplier."
As such, I agree with the proposition that its the
age of the deceased that is to be considered for fixing the
multiplier even in the case of a Bachelor. As such the objection
by the MSRTC does not stand well in view of the prevailing
law.
5.3.3 On the other hand, Mr. Mohit Deshmukh, learned
Advocate for claimants would submit that while copies of the
SSC certificate and Aadhaar Card pertaining to the deceased
Ganesh Wagh was placed on record by the claimants vide a
list of document which was exhibited, the learned Tribunal
ought not to have adopted extremely mechanical approach to
rely upon the Inquest Panchnama and the Post Mortem report.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
5.3.4 Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate would submit
that it was incumbent on the part of the learned Tribunal to
examine the documents on record and to fix appropriate
multiplier corresponding to the age of the deceased. He would
submit that while documents showing exact age of the
deceased are on record and while the ld. Tribunal could have
called upon the concern parties for further explanation, if
wanted, the learned Tribunal must not to have relied upon the
Inquest Panchnama and Post Mortem report.
5.3.5 Mr. Deshmukh would submit that considering the
date of birth of the deceased appearing on both these
documents i.e. 04.05.1990, Ganesh Wagh's age was 24 years
09 month 21 days at the time of his death. Mr. Deshmukh,
learned Advocate would further submit that, had the learned
Tribunal held the age as '24 instead of 27', the correct
multiplier would be M-18, but not M-17.
5.3.6 Smt. Ranjana Reddy would find no reason to
deny that the documents i.e. SSC certificate and the Aadhaar
Card of deceased Ganesh Wagh were part of record before the
learned Tribunal.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
She would fairly submit that there may not be
reason to disbelieve those documents considering its nature,
yet she adds that the learned Tribunal was justified in not
referring such documents as they were not proved in due
process.
5.3.7 My findings:-
(a) With able assistance of both the Advocates, I have
gone through the Record and Proceeding of the case in hand. I
find that a list of document has been filed under the signature
of the claimant no.1 and his Advocate on 13.04.2015, which
consists acknowledgment seal and signature of the
Superintendent Judicial (Civil) District Court, Aurangabad.
The list contains 13 documents including First Information
Report, Inquest panchnama, Post Mortem Report, Spot
Panchnama, S.T. bus papers, License of S.T. bus driver, AA
form, original HSC certificate, SSC certificate, Original MBBS
1st year Mark Memo, Original MBBS 2nd year Mark Memo,
original MBBS 3rd year Mark Memo and Aadhaar Card of the
deceased. It seems that the list of documents is exhibited, the
documents enlisted with the list are given pagination. The
Certified copies are given Exhibit number.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
Original HSC certificate and original MBBS 1 st to
3rd year markmemos are given Exhibit numbers. The rest
documents are not given Exhibit numbers, however there is
also no endorsement U/O XIII Rule 3 & 6 of Civil Procedure
Code on such other documents.
(b) It reveals that the ld. Tribunal relied upon Inquest
Panchnama and Post Mortem report which were filed together
with the same documents under the same list of documents.
Pertinent to note, the Inquest Panchanama contain age of the
deceased as 'approximately 27 ( vankts 27 o"kZ ) However, it
didn't consider the other documents produced by the
Claimants to record the age of the deceased i.e. SSC/HSC
certificates or the Aadhaar Card.
There could be no debate that its for the
plaintiff/claimant to comply Order XIII Rule 1 of the Civil
Procedure Code. However, agreeing that some documents
were not relied because those were in the form of copies,
instead of adopting conventional approach to discard those
vital documents at threshold, 'it would have been just &
appropriate to call upon the claimants to produce
originals/certified copy of the age supporting documents,
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
particularly SSC certificate' since its "An Inquiry" in the nature
of summary trial.
The SSC Certificate i.e. Matriculation certificate is
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as a Public Document.
Reference can be made to the case of "Rishipal Singh Solanki
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported at (2022) 8 SCC 602".
In fact looking to the nature of the documents i.e.
particularly the 'SSC certificate', and while the MSRTC has
not disputed those particular documents, even procedure
under Rule 3-A of Order XII of Civil Procedure Code could
have been placed into service. This is what exactly expected to
be done meaningfully while dealing with such Trial which
infact is an Inquiry. The law provides ways to make profitable
use of such public document in such Inquiry by taking
recourse to available legal provisions to make them admissible
in evidence and to look into.
(c) Technically Ld. Tribunal is certainly not at fault.
But its the high time one has to exercise realistic approach on
this point.
In my opinion Post Mortem Report or Inquest
Panchnama is not at all dependable as regards to age because
it merely put approximate age.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
If more than one document are on record from
which one fact (age as in present case) has to be ascertained,
the document which is more beneficial for the claimants has
to be considered by the Ld. Tribunals. For that, its for the
courts and Tribunals to implement the provisions and the
procedure meaningfully and proactively. As I observed, its an
'Inquiry' and not a routine suit. This is because its a
benevolent and social beneficial legislation.
(d) Its trite law that the rules of Strict Evidence must
not be insisted while dealing with cases arising out of Social
Beneficial Legislation. For fiddling technicalities which could
have been resolved by adopting appropriate legal recourse,
the claimants must not be left to suffer injustice. Considering
this is a beneficial legislation and a summary trial, in the
peculiar facts of the case I deem it just to hold that the correct
age of the deceased Ganesh ought to be held 24 years 09
months 21 days on the d/o accident, instead of approximate
27 years. Its particularly when the MSRTC has fairly and
seriously not disputed the SSC Certificates- and also Aadhar
card of the deceased. As such, in view of the prevailing law
the correct multiplier would have been 'M-18', but not 'M-17'.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
(e) This feel it appropriate to record that, while
computing the award Ld. Tribunals must adopt a disciplined
yardstick to apply the correct multiplier. A compensation
claim is an Inquiry and a piece of social beneficial legislation.
The object of this legislation is to provide 'Just & Proper'
compensation to the deserving claimants.
Needless to mention, in the prevailing era almost
everybody's age or date of birth is identifiable/noticeable at-
least on one document e.g. Adhar card, PAN card, driving
license,school record, some identity cards issued by
State/Central Govts. etc. Then Ld. Tribunals bearing in mind
that its an 'Inquiry', must call upon the Claimant side to
produce on record either of such document to consider the
age of the deceased. It won't be incorrect to observe that
there would be hardly any person in the present epoch where
there is absolutely no record of age / date of birth of such one.
Reliance upon the Inquest Panchanama or Post mortem report
is an archaic method to consider the age of deceased, where
there was absolutely no availability of a least minimum
evidence of deceased's age.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
Instead of adopting a mechanical way of referring
to Post Mortem report or Inquest Panchanama which merely
predict the age of the deceased, its high time to switch on
proactive mode and to call upon the Claimant side to produce
adequate evidence indicating the age of deceased. This can be
done even while issuing notice on Exhibit-1 which would be
meaningful for early & 'less controversial disposal' of the claim
petitions as also for early settlement of claim.
(f) This is for the obvious reason that even a tenuous
error in applying multiplier relying upon Post Mortem report
or Inquest Panchanama, results either in "injustice to the
claimants or prejudice to public exchequer" which leads to
unnecessary litigation. Ascertaining age of the deceased or
victim as the case may be, is not merely a formality but a
pivotal action to fix the 'Just & Proper' compensation. A
judicial note is taken that number of First Appeals are
preferred and pending from both sides predominantly against
application of incorrect multiplier. When fixing a multiplier is
well guided, there is no room to cause even a minor 'here &
there' while applying the multiplier.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
5.4 INCOME of the deceased:
5.4.1 So far as, the income of the deceased is
considered, Mr. Mohit Deshmukh, ld.Advocate has taken
me to the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Kirti (supra).
Mr. Deshmukh relying upon paragraph 17 to 19
would submit that particularly, so far as death case of students
is concern, the course they are studying, their academic
proficiency, their family background, etc., would assist to
determine and fix what they could earn in future. The relevant
paragraphs are reproduced as follows:
17. There are two distinct categories of
situations wherein the court usually determines
notional income of a victim. The first category of
cases relates to those wherein the victim was
employed, but the claimants are not able to prove
her actual income, before the court. In such a
situation, the court "guesses" the income of the
victim on the basis of the evidence on record, like
the quality of life being led by the victim and her
family, the general earning of an individual
employed in that field, the qualifications of the
victim, and other considerations.
18. The second category of cases relates to
those situations wherein the Court is called upon
to determine the income of a non-earning victim,
such as a child, a student or a homemaker.
Needless to say, compensation in such cases is
extremely difficult to quantify.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
19. The court often follows different principles
for determining the compensation towards a non-
earning victim in order to arrive at an amount
which would be just in the facts and
circumstances of the case. Some of these involve
the determination of notional income. Whenever
notional income is determined in such cases,
different considerations and factors are taken into
account. For instance, for students, the court
often considers the course that they are studying,
their academic proficiency, the family
background, etc. to determine and fix what they
could earn in the future. (See M.R. Krishna
Murthi V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.)
5.4.2 It is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
referred to and relied upon its earlier judgment in the case of
M.R. Krishnamurti Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited ,
reported in (2020) 15 SCC 493. Then Mr. Deshmukh, learned
Advocate for the claimants relies upon a case of Ashvinbhai
Jayantilal Modi Vs. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and Anr ,
reported in (2015) 2 SCC 180. Mr. Deshmukh, learned
Advocate would urge that it was a case of death of a student
prosecuting medical studies. He further submits that it was a
death of 2002, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
income of the deceased @Rs.25,000/-.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
In another death case of a medical student i.e.
Bishnupriya Panda Vs. Basanti Manjari Mohanty and Anr ,
wherein it was held that while the accident was of 2013, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the finding of the High
Court of Orissa, wherein income of the deceased was held
@Rs.50,000/- per month. Worth to note in this case, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved application of the
Future Prospects in the compensation.
5.4.3 As such, Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the
claimants would submit that the argument of the claimants
before the learned Tribunal to hold income of the deceased
@Rs.56,000/- per month ought to have been considered.
Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate would submit that in view
of the facts stated above and the law cited, the claimants
deserve enhancement in the compensation.
5.4.4 Smt. Ranjana Reddy, learned Advocate for the
M.S.R.T.C. would however supported the findings of the
learned Tribunal on income of the deceased. She would
vehemently submit that considering the uncertainty of job, Ld.
Tribunal has rightly rejected claimants' prayer to hold
deceased's income @ Rs.56,000/- p.m.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
5.4.5 My findings: -
(a) Certainly, there was no income proof of deceased
Ganesh Wagh. He was a final year medical student.
The typical notional income concept can not be applied in
such case. Hence this case needs to be judged in the light of
the law developed by various judgments rendered by the Hon.
Supreme Court.
There are certain categories of persons whose
income can not be assessed with any tangible evidence viz a
viz :
(i) Persons who are not in earning state of life e.g. minors,
too old persons etc.;
(ii) those who are in earning state of life but can't be said to
be employed & earning thereby, yet who contribute their
families e.g. housewives/Persons having no direct income;
(iii) those who are in earning state of life but don't have any
tangible proof of income or those whose income is uncertain
etc. masons, labors etc.;
(iv) those who has some suggestive proof of job but don't have
tangible proof of income e.g. drivers, shopkeepers, vendors
etc.; and
(v) those who are not in earning state of life but have strong
potentials to earn in view of their qualification, education,
experience, profile etc.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
(b) In the case of 'Laxmi Devi and ors. Vs.
Mohammad Tabbar and ors.' reported at '2008 (12) SCC
165', the Hon. Supreme Court took exception to the Schedule-
II to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Hon.
Supreme Court held income of the deceased in that case @ Rs.
3000/- p.m. notionally. Gradually the amounts of notional
income went on varying on higher side in the light of the
distinguishing facts of the cases which raised even upto
8,000/- p.m. to 12,000/- p.m.
(c) Its noteworthy that recently the Hon. Supreme
Court has shown its disapproval in granting compensation
merely on the basis of 'Notional Income'. The following
guiding instances would demonstrate how the Hon. Supreme
Court has taken realistic and pragmatic approach while
imparting justice to secure the object of the benevolent
legislation:
C-1 Category (I): Minors :
So far as case of Minors are concerned, Hon.
Supreme Court directed to consider the Minimum Wages
notified for skilled employee.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
Reliance needs to be placed on the recent
pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Hitesh Patel Vs. Bababhai Rabari and ors. [2025 INSC 1070],
wherein referring to its earlier decisions in the cases of Kajal
v. Jagdish Chand and Ors. [2020 (4) SCC 413] and Baby
Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr. [2024 SCC
Online SC 3692]. Its pertinent to note that the Hon. Supreme
Court has even directed the Insurance Companies to produce
on record such Notifications issued by the Government from
time to time laying down minimum salary/wages.
C-2 Category (ii) : Persons don't having direct income e.g.
housewife
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a landmark
judgment in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs. National
Insurance Co. Ltd. And ors. [2010 (9) SCC 218], observed
that contribution of Housewife in homemaking is nonetheless
lower than an earning member. In the said case the Ld.
Tribunal held income of a housewife @ Rs. 5000/- p.m., The
High Court reduced it to Rs. 2500/- p.m.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
Disapproving reduction caused by the High Court
in the income of a Housewife, the Hon. Supreme Court
restored housewife's income @ Rs. 5000/- p.m.
The guiding observations of the Hon. Supreme
Court are reproduced as follows:
"23. In India the Courts have recognized
that the contribution made by the wife to the
house is invaluable and cannot be computed in
terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered
by wife with true love and affection to the
children and her husband and managing the
household affairs cannot be equated with the
services rendered by others. A wife/mother does
not work by the clock. She is in the constant
attendance of the family throughout the day and
night unless she is employed and is required to
attend the employer's work for particular hours.
She takes care of all the requirements of husband
and children including cooking of food, washing
of clothes, etc. She teaches small children and
provides invaluable guidance to them for their
future life. A housekeeper or maidservant can do
the household work, such as cooking food,
washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house
clean 2 etc., but she can never be a substitute for
a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her
husband and children.
24. It is not possible to quantify any amount in
lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother
to the family i.e. husband and children. However,
for the purpose of award of compensation to the
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
dependents, some pecuniary estimate has to be
made of the services of housewife/mother. In that
context, the term 'services' is required to be given
a broad meaning and must be construed by
taking into account the loss of personal care and
attention given by the deceased to her children as
a mother and to her husband as a wife. They are
entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the
loss of gratuitous services rendered by the
deceased. The amount payable to the dependants
cannot be diminished on the ground that some
close relation like a grandmother may volunteer
to render some of the services to the family which
the deceased was giving earlier."
This law is consistently re-iterated by the Hon.
Supreme Court in its later pronouncements.
Latest in the case of Arvind Kumar Pandey Vs.
Girish Pande [C.A. 2512 of 2024] , the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that,
"7. Assuming that the deceased was not
employed, it cannot be disputed that she was a
homemaker. Her direct and indirect monthly
income, in no circumstances, could be less than
the wages admissible to a daily wager in the State
of Uttarakhand under the Minimum Wages Act.
8. It goes without saying that the role of a
homemaker is as important as that of a family
member whose income is tangible as a source of
livelihood for the family. The activities performed
by a home-maker, if counted one by one, there
will hardly be any doubt that the contribution of
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
a home-maker is of a high order and invaluable.
In fact, it is difficult to assess such a contribution
in monetary terms."
C-3 Category (iii) & (iv): Persons not having income, but
have potentials to earn qua their education background,
profile etc.
In its another epochal decision, the Hon. Supreme
Court was dealing with another category of persons who can
be said to have some suggestive/indicative job but no income
proof could be produced or could have uncertain income. It
was a case of a truck driver where evidence was indicative of
his job, but income was not proved. This case is known as
Chandra @ Chanda@Chandraram & another V/s Mukush
Kumar Yadav & Ors. [2021 INSC 593:C.A. No.6152 of 2021] .
Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled where income was uncertain or
could not be proved, such guesswork to fix the income has to
be carried out which would be a result of "cautious, judicious
and contemplative mind". Considering the nature of job of
the accident victim, Hon. Supreme Court held that the
notifications issued by the Central Government defining
minimum wages can be taken into consideration, in peculiar
facts, even something more can be added into the minimum
fixed salary as notified by the Central govt.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
Relevant portion from para. No.10 of "Chandra"
case (supra) is reproduced as below for ready reference:
"In absence of salary certificate the minimum
wage notification can be a yard-stick but at the
same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the
income of the de-ceased. In absence of
documentary evidence on record some amount of
guesswork is required to be done. But at the same
time the guesswork for assessing the income of
the deceased should not be totally detached from
reality. Merely because claimants were unable to
produce documentary evidence to show the
monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify
adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while
computing the income"
C-4 Category (v): Persons having no income/job but have
expedient potentials to suggest their income:
Now coming to the present case of category (v),
Considering the facts of the case that the deceased was indeed
a meritorious student, who has secured admission to
government medical college at Aurangabad and was
prosecuting final year of the M.B.B.S studies, it necessarily
calls me to refer the realistic view latest expressed by the Hon.
Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Singh (Died Per Lrs.) Vs.
HD Narang and ors. [2025 INSC 1164 : C.A. 8136 of 2024].
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
It was a case of a student prosecuting the studies
of Chartered Accountant. Their Lordships observed that,
"5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
argued that there was no rationale in adopting
the minimum wages for determining the income
of a bright student who was in the process of
completing his graduation and proceeding to sit
for the Chartered Accountants examinations. The
learned Counsel for the Insurance Company first
argued that the amounts determined as minimum
wages, is as per the schedule in Delhi relatable to
a graduate. We were not convinced that the
minimum wages would be determined on the
basis of the educational qualification alone
without reference to the nature of work carried
on. The learned Counsel after further verification
submitted that minimum wages adopted is of the
year 2001 applicable to a skilled worker. We are
not convinced that even that can be adopted for a
graduate who was in the process of sitting for the
Chartered Accountant examination which would
have placed him in a good employment with
immense prospects. The aspirations of the young
man were shattered by the accident which left
him paraplegic and fighting for breath, which
also prompted the parents to relocate to another
part of the country. We are of the opinion that
even if he had not obtained the certificate as a
Chartered Accountant, upon graduation, he could
have been employed as an Accountant, who
would have, on any reasonable estimate, received
an amount of Rs.5,000/- as monthly income in
the year 2001, if the minimum wages prescribed
for a skilled worker was Rs.3,352/-.
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
Adopting Rs.5,000/- as monthly income, we are
of the opinion that, as has been held in Pranay
Sethi1 , 40% has to be computed as future
prospects. The loss of income for the 100%
disabled paraplegic would be Rs.15,12,000/-
(Rs.5,000/- x 140% x 12 x 18). To this is to be
added an amount of Rs.14 lakhs granted by the
High Court under conventional heads and the
medical expenses of Rs.11,22,356/- totalling to
Rs.40,34,356/-. The total award carrying interest
@ 9% per annum from the filing of the petition
till realisation, as awarded by the Tribunal & the
High Court and enhanced by us will be paid to
the substituted appellant within a period of four
months from today.
(6) Conclusion
6.1 For the reasons recorded above, I am well guided
by the fiat governed by reasoned realistic approach of the
Hon. Supreme Court (supra) in compensation cases on the
issues discussed herein. Corresponding to the category of the
deceased i.e. a meritorious final year student of Medical
faculty, I am of the considered view that the 'Just and proper'
compensation must be in the light of the observations made
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirti (supra) ,
Bishnupriya (supra) and Sharad Singh (supra).
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
6.2 Hence, I feel appropriate to hold the income of
the deceased Ganesh Wagh atleast @ Rs.50,000/- per month
to fix the 'Just & Appropriate' compensation. The correct
multiplier would be M-18 which is corresponding to the age of
the deceased Ganesh Wagh. The Claimants are entitle for
compensation under the head of 'Future Prospects' which
equally shall carry interest.
6.3 In view of my findings above, in my opinion the
correct computation of the award would be as follows:
Sr. Particulars Amount
No.
1 Monthly income 50,000/-
2 Annual income (50,000*12) 6,00,000/-
4 Deduction towards personal and -3,00,000/-
living expenses (@ 50%)
5 Total (Annual income-deduction) 3,00,000/-
8 Total (Column 5*18) 54,00,000/-
9 Future Prospects (Column 8*40%) 75,60,000/-
10 Non Pecuniary Damages 1,10,000/-
11 Total enhanced amount 76,70,000/-
12 Amount awarded by Tribunal 54,80,000/-
13 Enhanced amount (Column 11-12) 21,90,000/-
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
(07) Resultantly, I pass following order:
ORDER
I. First Appeal No.1369 of 2016 filed by the
MSRTC stands dismissed without any
order as to cost.
I-A The claimants i.e. R.Nos.1 to 3 in the First
Appeal No.1369 of 2016 are entitle to
withdraw the amount deposited by the
Appellant in this Court, if any pending
balance. Undertakings/security if any
executed by the Claimants, stand
discharged.
II. Cross Objection No.200 of 2025 is partly
allowed thereby enhancing the
compensation from Rs.54,80,000/- to
76,70,000/-.
III. Amount of Rs. 54,80,000/- at clause 2 of
the operative order in the impugned
Judgment & Order dtd.31-12-2012 passed
by the Ld. Member, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal Aurangabad in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.241 of 2015, shall stand
replaced by Rs. 76,70,000/-,
and
Amount of Rs.54,30,000/- at clause 3 of the
operative order in the impugned judgment
and order dated 31.12.2012 passed by the
Ld. Member, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal Aurangabad in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.241 of 2015, be replaced
by Rs.76,20,000/-;
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
IV. The respondents in the Cross Objection
No.200 of 2025 shall deposit the
enhanced amount in this Court within ten
weeks together with interest @6 % p.a.
from the date of institution of the claim
petition i.e. w.e.f. 02.04.2015, till
realization of the entire amount;
IV-A Upon such deposit in this court, the
Claimants i.e. Appellants in the Cross
Objection No.200 of 2025 shall be entitle to
withdraw it in the same proportion as
has been directed by the Ld. Tribunal;
V. Appellants in Cross Objection to pay deficit
Court fees, if any;
VI. Civil Applications if any, stand disposed of
in view of disposal of the First Appeal and
the Cross Objection.
Pronounced in open court.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
Rushikesh/2025
FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025
