Bombay High Court
Future Generali General Insurance Co. ... vs Sangita Dhondiram Pawar And Ors on 30 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:26996
FA-1988-2020
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1988 OF 2020
Future Generali General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Block No. A, Ist Floor, Heritage House No. 6,
Ramabai Ambedkar Road,
Near Sohrab Hall, Pune.
District Pune 411 001.
Through its Manager
R/o : C/o Future Generali General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
Elphinstone Road, Mumbai ... Appellant
(Orig. Res. No.3)
Versus
1] Smt. Sangita w/o Dhondiram Pawar
Age 35 years, Occu. Household,
2] Sujata d/o. Dhondiram Pawar
Age 11 years, Occu. Education
3] Amrata d/o Dhondiram Pawar
Age 9 years, Occu. Education
4] Shivam s/o Dhondiram Pawar
Age 3 years, Occu. Nil
Respondent No.2 to 4 are minors
Under guardianship of their
natural mother Respondent No.1
All R/o. Sai, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ... (Ori. Claimants)
5] Pandurang s/o. Harihar Chavan,
Age Major, Occu. Driver,
R/o. Nagangaon, Post Vassa
Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani
(Driver of Truck No. MH12/EQ0504) ... (Ori. R. No.1)
6] Mr. Atul s/o Kantilal Dhoot,
Age 45 years, Occu. Business,
FA-1988-2020
-2-
R/o. 470/71 Shukrawar Peth N,
Gulmohar Apartment,
Flat No. 7/7/8, Subhash Nagar Lane
No.1 Pune, Dist Pune 411 001. ... Ori. Resp. No.2
(owner of Truck No. MH 12/EQ 0504)
... Respondents
.....
Mr. S. S. Patil, Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. R. B. Deshpande for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4
Mr. T. C. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 23 SEPTEMBER 2025
Pronounced on : 30 SEPTEMBER 2025
PER COURT :-
1. Instant First Appeal by Insurance company hereby takes
exception to the judgment and award dated 12.12.2019 passed by
learned Member, M.A.C.T., Latur in M.A.C.P. No. 270 of 2017.
FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE INSTANT APPEAL ARE AS UNDER :
2. Present respondent nos. 1 to 4 filed above claim in the capacity
of LRs of deceased Dhondiram, setting up a case that on 24.08.2017
while Dhondiram was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No. MH
24/R-8223, he was given dash by truck bearing No. MH 12/EQ-0504
from backside. Dhondiram expired on the spot and crime was
registered against the truck driver. Further case was set up that at the
time of death, Dhondiram was working in Akshay Fertilizer as a
FA-1988-2020
-3-
Manager and was earning salary of Rs.12,000/- per month and also
received additional bhatta to the tune of Rs.100/- per day. Dhondiram
was the sole bread earner of the family and on account of his
accidental death, claimants have lost their sole source of earning and
under various heads, they set up a claim of compensation of
Rs.33,12,600/-. Their specific case was that respondent nos. 1, 2 and
3 i.e. driver, owner and insurer of the truck are liable to pay the
compensation.
3. Learned Tribunal issued notice and permitted parties to adduce
evidence and after appreciating the same, partly allowed it by
directing respondents to jointly and severely pay compensation to the
tune of Rs.24,58,000/- with 9% rate of interest.
Feeling aggrieved by the above, insurance company-original
respondent no.3 has preferred instant Appeal on various grounds
mentioned in the appeal memo.
4. Heard. Perused the record and impugned judgment. Sum and
substance of the argument made by learned counsel for the insurance
company is that, insurance company is taking exception only to the
quantum of compensation. He pointed out that, claimants set up a
FA-1988-2020
-4-
case about deceased Dhondiram to be working as Manager and
earning Rs.12,000/- per month by way of salary and allegedly
examined witness Sampat (CW-2) as well as produced Income Tax
Returns. However, according to him, there is no positive and legally
acceptable evidence that deceased Dhondiram alone earned
Rs.12,000/- salary per month and moreover, deceased is not
demonstrated to be even in permanent employment. He pointed out
that, income tax returns placed on record does not clearly specify
about above salary quoted by respondents-original claimants. That,
there were two employees including deceased Dhondiram and
therefore, if at all quantum of salary is reflected in the income tax
returns, each of the employee could have earned only Rs.5,000/-
each. According to him, learned tribunal has failed to consider this
aspect and has considered salary to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and
additional amount. He further took exception to the computation
done by tribunal regarding deduction towards personal expenses and
took this court through the calculations reflected in the impugned
judgment in para 13 and 14. However, he fairly conceded that
tribunal has failed to grant compensation @ 50% increase towards
future prospects which the claimants were entitled to as per the law
laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
and Others 2017 (6) BomCR 791/AIR 2017 SC 5157.
FA-1988-2020
-5-
5. In answer to above, learned counsel for original claimants
pointed out that claimants had proved salary income of deceased by
examining witness CW2 Sampat. He also submitted that, salary
certificate was placed on record and it is got proved and exhibited at
Exhibit 48. According to him, there is no effective cross on the point
of payment of Income Tax or its Returns. He also justifies the
computation and would submit that, calculations are correct and it is
inclusive of personal expenses of deceased while deducting the
entitlement of compensation. For above reasons, he urges to consider
future prospects and dismiss the appeal filed by insurance company.
He seeks reliance on judgment of this Court in Sushila wd/o Subhash
Mendhe & Anr v. National Insurance Company Limited & Others
reported in 2019 (1) All MR 658 and Jaya Biswal & Others v. Branch
Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. 2016
ALL SCR 657 for consideration of salary income.
6. After considering the above submissions and on going through
the evidence as well as impugned judgment, there does not seem to
be any dispute in this Appeal regarding negligence. As regards to
quantum is concerned, according to insurance company, there was no
legally acceptable evidence about salary for above reasons.
FA-1988-2020
-6-
7. Perused the evidence, more particularly of CW2 Sampat, as he
is the witness on the point of income of deceased. Through this
witness, Exhibit 48 is proved. Therefore, the same needs to be
considered when particularly witness has been examined on the point
of income.
There is no reason to not to consider his evidence to accept the
claim about deceased earning Rs.12,000/- per month. There is no
evidence about payment of additional amount or Bhatta.
8. Calculations and computations from paragraphs 12 to 14 are
re-visited and re-assessed. Learned Tribunal has considered monthly
salary as Rs.12,000/- and after deducting 1/4th amount from it (i.e.
12,000 - 3000 = 9000) towards personal expenses, added 40%
towards future prospects (i.e. 9000 + 3600 = 12,600). As pointed
out by learned counsel, learned Tribunal has failed to award addition
of 50% amount, in stead of 40%, entitled under future prospects as
per the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) and hence the same
deserves to be granted.
FA-1988-2020
-7-
9. In view of the above discussion, in the considered opinion of
this Court, the respondents-claimants are entitled for following
compensation :
Sr. Heads Amount (Rs.)
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.12,000/-
(as computed by the Tribunal)
2 After 1/4th deduction towards personal Rs.9,000/-
expenses
(as computed by the Tribunal)
3 After addition of 50% towards future Rs.13,500/-
prospects (9000 + 4500)
4. Annual income (13,500 X 12) 1,62,000/-
3 Multiplier of 15 (1,62,000 X 15) Rs.24,30,000/-
5 Non-pecuniary Loses :- Rs.1,90,000/-
Loss of Estate = Rs.15,000/-
(as awarded by Tribunal)
Funeral Expenses = Rs.15,000/-
(as awarded by Tribunal)
Loss of consortium = Rs.1,60,000/-
(as awarded by Tribunal)
6 Total compensation to be paid Rs.26,20,000/-
(i.e. 24,30,000 + 1,90,000)
7 Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.24,58,000/-
8 Total Enhanced Compensation Rs.1,62,000/-
(26,20,000 - 24,58,000)
FA-1988-2020
-8-
10. In the result, following order is passed :
ORDER
I. The First Appeal, which is at the instance of the Insurance
Company, is hereby dismissed.
II. The impugned judgment and award dated 12.12.2019, passed
by the Adhoc DJ-1 and Ex-officio Member of MACT, Latur in
M.A.C.P. No. 270 of 2017 is modified.
III. The appellant Insurance Company to pay enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,62,000/- to the claimants within 12
weeks from today along with interest @ 6% 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 the enhanced compensation as
per rules.
VI. On deposit of the amount by the Insurance Company, claimants
are permitted to withdraw the same.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
