Bombay High Court
Gangasagar Rajesh Kamthekar And Ors vs Vishwanath Ravi Sontakke And Anr on 24 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:26145
{1} FA 3167 OF 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
943 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3167 OF 2021
1. Gangasagar Rajesh Kamthekar
Age: 36 yrs., Occu.: Housewife.
2. Sneha d/o. Rajesh Kamthekar
Age: 15 years, Occu.: Education,
Minor U/g. of Appellant No.1.
3. Shreyash s/o Rajesh Kamthekar
Age: 10 yrs., Occu.: Education,
Minor U/g. of Appellant No.1.
4. Kamal s/o Vyankatrao Kamthekar
Age: 63 yrs., Occu.: Housewife.
5. Vyankatrao s/o Namdeorao Kamthekar
Age: 71 yrs., Occu.: Pensioner,
All R/o. Kamtha (KH.),
Tq. & Dist.Nanded. ....Appellant
(Ori. Claimants)
Versus
1. Vishwanath s/o Ravi Sontakke
Age: Major, Occu.: Business,
(Owner of TIPPAR Bearing
Registration No.MH-04 CP-6164)
R/o. Bramhanwada, Near Matasahib
Gurudwara, Nanded.
Tq. and Dist.Nanded.
2. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
Through It's Manager,
Office at L-8, RIICO Industrial Area,
Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajastan - 302022.
Through It's Sister Branch,
Through It's Manager,
Office of Chetan Trade Center Office
No.109-110, First Floor, Opposite SFS
{2} FA 3167 OF 2021
School, Akashwani Jalna Road,
Aurangabad. .....Respondents
.....
Advocate for Appellants : Mr.Vaibhav B. Dhage
Advocate for Respondent no.1 : Mr. Shivsamb N. Janakwade
Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr.Swapnil S. Rathi
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 12 SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 24 SEPTEMBER, 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Feeling aggrieved by the grant of insufficient compensation,
instant appeal is by original claimants thereby challenging the
judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge-3 & Ex-
Officio Member of MACT, Nanded, in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.497 of 2017.
2. Facts giving rise to claim petition are that deceased Rajesh
(husband of appellant no.1) was proceeding on his two wheeler. He
was given dash by vehicle owned by respondent no.1 and insured by
respondent no.2. While undergoing treatment, decease succumbed
to the fatal injuries. Therefore, crime No.207 of 2017 was registered
against respondent no.1 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 134 (A)(B) of the Motor
{3} FA 3167 OF 2021
Vehicles Act.
Case set up by claimants in accident claim petition was that,
there was rash and negligence driving on the part of driver of the
offending vehicle owned respondent no.1, which was insured by
respondent no.2 and as such they sought claim against both
respondents jointly and severely.
On appreciating oral and documentary evidence, learned
Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 23-05-2019, partly
allowed the claim petition.
Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of the compensation,
original claimants have preferred instant appeal.
3. Heard both sides. It appears that the appellants/claimants are
aggrieved by non-consideration of their proposed claim and failure to
consider grant of future prospects as per settled law and consortium
to each of the claimants, which according to learned counsel, they
are entitled to in view of recent law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Limited
v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others,
(2018) 18 SCC 130.
{4} FA 3167 OF 2021
4. Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 have supported
the judgment, however, learned counsel for respondent no.2
conceded that learned Tribunal had granted consortium only to
appellant no.1, instead of granting to each of the claimants.
5. After going through the record and on hearing each of the
sides, there does not appear to be serious challenge or dispute
regarding accidental death of Rajesh while he was proceeding on his
two wheeler on account of dash given by vehicle owned by
respondent no.1 and insured by respondent no.2. The only ground
for challenge is non-consideration of future prospects and consortium
to each of the claimants. Such claim has also been not denied by
learned counsel by respondent no.2/Insurance Company. Therefore,
on such limited ground, impugned order is visited and re-
appreciated.
6. On doing so, it does emerge that in paragraph nos. 15 and 16,
learned Tribunal has observed that in view of evidence of CW2
Govind Nandkumar Bidwai at exh.54, per annum income of Rajesh is
considered Rs.3,00,000/- i.e. Rs.25,000 per month. In the light of
{5} FA 3167 OF 2021
evidence of CW2 Govind Nandkumar Bidwai and papers like Income
Tax Returns, above quantification cannot be faulted at. Even
deduction towards personal expenses has been considered and dealt
by learned Tribunal in paragraph no.18. However, as pointed out,
towards consortium, learned Tribunal has granted only Rs.40,000/-.
Infact in view of Pranay Sethi and others (supra) and Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), each of the claimants i.e. children
and parents also are entitled to receive amount under the head of
Consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each. As per the setllted law, the
claimants are also entitled for 10% increase in the consortium
amount for a span of every three years from the date of the judgment
of the learned Tribunal.
7. Even from the impugned judgment, it is emerging that, learned
Tribunal has not considered entitlement of the claimants for future
prospects. In the fitness of things, considering the proved income
and age of the deceased at the time of accident, 25% of the existing
income needs to be awarded towards future prospects. After
considering the amount towards future prospects and consortium to
each of the claimants, the details of the amount of compensation to
be paid to the claimants are as under :
{6} FA 3167 OF 2021
Sr. Heads Amount
No. (Rs.) (Rs.)
1 Annual Income (i.e. 25,000 p.m. x 12) = 3,00,000
2 Add Future Prospects (25% of income) 3,75,000
i.e. 75,000 = 3,00,000 + 75,000
3 Less ¼ deduction towards personal expenses 2,81,250
(3,75,000 - 93,750)
4 Multiplier of 14 (2,81,250 x 14) 39,37,500
5 Non-pecuniary Losses : 2,62,000
Loss of consortium (40,000 x 5) = 2,00,000
Amount already considered by the Tribunal
towards consortium = 40,000. Therefore, addition
of 10% increase for a span of every three years is
only on 1,60,000.
i.e. 20% of 160,000 = 32,000
Loss of Estate = 15,000
Funeral Expenses = 15,000
6 Medical and hospital bills 4,40,736
7 Total Compensation to be paid 46,40,236
8 Less - Compensation awarded by Tribunal 36,60,736
9 Total enhanced amount of compensation 9,79,500
8. Therefore, after considering the amount of future prospects
and consortium, the claimants are entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.9,79,500/-. Accordingly, following order is
passed :
ORDER
(i) First Appeal is partly allowed.
{7} FA 3167 OF 2021
(ii) Impugned judgment and award dated 23-05-2019
passed by the learned District Judge-3 and Ex-Officio
Member of MACT, Nanded, in M.A.C.P. No.497 of 2017 is
modified.
(iii) Respondent no.2/Insurance Company to pay
enhanced compensation amount of Rs.9,79,500/- to
appellants - claimants within 12 weeks from today along
with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
registration of claim petition till its realization.
(iv) Out of enhanced compensation amount of
Rs.9,79,500/-, an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- be paid to
claimant no.1 and Rs.1,50,000/- each be paid to claimant
nos.4 and 5 by crossed account payee cheques in their
names and remaining amount of Rs.4,54,500/- be
distributed equally amongst claimant nos.2 and 3 and the
amount of claimant no.3 i.e. Rs.2,27,250/- shall be kept in
fixed deposit in his name in any Nationalized Bank till he
attains majority.
(v) Rest of the award of the learned Tribunal is
maintained.
(vi) Modified award be prepared accordingly.
(vii) Claimants to pay court fees on enhanced
compensation as per Rules.
{8} FA 3167 OF 2021
(viii) On deposit of the amount by respondent no.2/ Insurance
Company, appellants - claimants are permitted to withdraw the
same.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
