[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sangita Vitthal Chormale And Ors vs Piyush S/O Trimbak Shirsath And Ors on 1 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:13703
1 fa 259.22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2022
1. Smt. Sangita w/o Vitthal Chormale,
Age : 40 years, Occu. : Household,
R/o Behind MIT College,
Satara Area, Aurangabad,
District : Aurangabad.
2. Ram S/o Vitthal Chormale,
Age : 21 Years, Occu. : Education,
R/o as above.
3. Pawan s/o Vitthal Chormale,
Age : 18 years, Occu. : Education,
R/o as above. .. Appellants
Versus
1. Piyush s/o Trimbak Shirsath,
Age : 27 Years, Occu. : Driver,
R/o Samarth Garden, R. H. No. 1,
in front of Janki Hotel,
Aurangabad.
2. Trimbak s/o Keru Shirsath,
Age : 42 Years, Occu. : Business,
R/o Sai Prasad Plot No.
G-70, No. 4, Cidco, Aurangabad.
3. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Branch Manager,
Branch Office at Near Indusland Bank
Mondha Naka, Over Bridge, Jalna
Road, Aurangabad. .. Respondents
2 fa 259.22
Mrs. Mangal R. Chavan, Advocate for the Appellants.
Ms. Shreyashri Pujari, Advocate h/f Shri Sachin Panale,
Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri Swapnil S. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON : 17.03.2026
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 01.04.2026
JUDGMENT :
-
. Heard both sides finally.
2. Appellants are challenging judgment and award dated
02.08.2021 passed in M. A. C. P. No. 255 of 2018 awarding
compensation of Rs. 9,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of filing of claim petition till it's realization.
It was a death claim. Appellant No. 1 is the wife and the
appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased.
3. The deceased was a driver, who met with an accident on
31.12.2017 and died on 19.01.2018. The offending vehicle was
registered with the respondent No. 3 - Insurance company. It
was driven by the respondent No. 1 and owned by the respondent
No. 2. He is stated to be working as a driver in a private
company namely Nath Seeds and earning Rs. 14,000/- per
month.
4. After the accident offence bearing Cr. No. 8/2018 was
registered with the police station. Investigation was conducted.
3 fa 259.22
The papers of police investigation were placed on record and
exhibited. Appellants filed M. A. C. P. No. 255 of 2018 claiming
compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/-.
5. The claim was contested by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by
common written statement denying the allegations. The
negligence and rashness was attributed to the deceased. The
respondent No. 3 - Insurance company also resisted the claim on
the same ground. Additionally, age, income and employment of
the deceased were also disputed. Appellants adduced oral
evidence of the appellant No. 1 and Manager. The papers of
investigation were produced on record. Oral evidence of Mr. Anil
Sonnekar, Assistant Manager was also produced to show the
monthly income was Rs. 10,000/- per month. The salary
certificate was produced at Exhibit 70.
6. Learned counsel Mrs. Mangal Chavan appearing for the
appellants submits that salary certificate at Exhibit 70, account
statement and oral evidence of the witness No. 2 would show
that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is
perversity to discard the evidence of income. It is further
submitted that the notional income to the extent of Rs. 6,000/-
per month is incorrect. It is further submitted that the medical
expenses of more than Rs. 1,30,000/- were proved. It is further
submitted that very inadequate amount was given towards non
pecuniary damages. It is submitted that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and unreasonable.
4 fa 259.22
7. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 opposes
the submissions. Learned counsel Mr. Swapnil Patil appearing
for the respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company submits that the
salary certificate and the oral evidence of the witness No. 2 are
rightly disbelieved. It is submitted that no evidence is produced
on record to show that deceased was in the employment. It is
further submitted that notional income is rightly treated to be
Rs. 6,000/- per month and no interference is called for in the
impugned judgment and award.
8. I have considered rival submissions of the parties. The
factum of the accident, death and the relationship interese are
not disputed. First information report is at Exhibit 29. Police
statements are at Exhibit Nos. 87 to 92. The extracts of charge
sheet is at Exhibit 101.
9. Appellants have produced on record the salary certificates
at Exhibit 70, in which monthly salary of the deceased is stated
to be Rs. 10,000/- per month. The authority letter is at Exhibit
69. The appellants examined third witness to prove the medical
bills. The oral evidence of witness No. 2 shows that deceased
was employee of Magine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. The claim
petition discloses that he was employee of Nath Seeds Company.
The certificates produced on record would indicate that Magine
Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. is having office at Nath House,
Paithan Road and there is no reason to castigate any doubt. I
find that there is no convincing material on record to castigate
5 fa 259.22
doubt of the employment of the deceased.
10. If it is presumed that appellants are unable to prove
monthly salary of the deceased, the notional income can be fixed
by resorting to notification dated 17.03.2017 of revision of
minimum rates of wages for various categories, which is fixed at
Rs. 334/- for driver and monthly income comes to Rs. 10,020/-.
For the sake of convenience this Court holds that the monthly
income of the deceased was Rs. 10,000/- per month. The
Tribunal committed error in treating Rs. 6,000/- per month as
notional income. The appellants - claimants are entitled to
future prospectus of 25%. The income is liable to be deducted to
the extent of 1/3rd towards personal expenses. The multiplier of
13 is applicable.
11. Appellants are entitled to have consortium separately at
the rate of Rs. 44,000/- per person, which is not given. They are
entitled to have the compensation under the heads of funeral
expenses and loss of consortium to the tune of Rs. 1,32,000/-. A
separate claim has been made for medical expenses and evidence
of witness No. 3 was adduced. Though the claim in that regard
was for Rs. 3,13,583/-, but it was accepted to the tune of Rs.
1,30,000/-. I find no illegality in the findings recorded by the
Tribunal. No material is produced on record that sum for the
medical expenses could be enhanced.
12. The appellants are entitled to receive the compensation
under following heads.
6 fa 259.22
Sr. No. Head Compensation
Awrded
1 Monthly Income of the deceased 10,000/-
2 Addition towards future 2,500/-
prospectus ( i. e. 25% of 10,000/-)
3 Monthly Income of the deceased 12,500/-
4 Less Deduction to the extent of 4,167/-
1/3rd towards personal expenses
(-)
5 Net monthly income of the 8,333/-
deceased Rs. 12,500 - 4,,167)
6 Yearly loss of income to be 99,996/-
considered for assessment (Rs.
8,333/- x 12)
7 Multiplier of 13 to be applied 12,99,948/-
considering age of deceased as 45
years 7 months Rs. 99,996/- x 13)
8 Compensation under head of loss 1,32,000/-
of consortium
9 Compensation for funeral 70,000/-
expenses, loss of estate, etc.
10 Medical Hospital bill paid by the 1,30,000/-
claimants
11 Total compensation to be 16,31,948/-
awarded
13. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the
judgment dated 11.02.2025 of the Apex Court in the matter
of Deepak Kumar and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. and others in Civil Appeal No. 2677 of 2025, in which
the Supreme Court accepted the notional income of the driver as
7 fa 259.22
Rs. 10,290/- per month relying on the notification issued by
Ministry of Labour and Employment dated 19.01.2017. I,
therefore, find merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for
the appellants.
14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, appellants are entitled
to have enhancement in the compensation. I, therefore, pass
following order.
ORDER
A. The first appeal is allowed partly.
B. The appellants are entitled to receive compensation of Rs.
16,31,948/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of petition i. e. 14.03.2018 till it's realization including
N.F.L. amount.
C. Save and except above, the judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal shall stand unaltered.
D. The appellants are entitled to receive compensation in
equal proportion as all of them are major.
E. The appellants shall pay deficit court fees.
F. Award be drawn up accordingly.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]
bsb/April 26
