[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Dnyanadeo@Dnyaneshwar Chintaman ... on 10 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:17279
Sayyed 909-FA.290.2012.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.290 OF 2012
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.927 OF 2012
United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Dnyanadeo @ Dnyaneshwar
Chintaman Dhamale & Ors. ...Respondents
_____________________________________________________
Mr. Ketan Joshi for the Appellant/Applicant.
Mr. Yogesh Thorat i/by Ms. Shakuntala Wadekar for Respondent Nos.1
& 2.
_____________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATE : 10 APRIL 2026
ORDER:
1. By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing at
the admission stage itself.
2. This is an appeal filed by the insurance company to challenge
the order of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pune (MACT, Pune),
whereby an amount of Rs.4,50,000 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per
annum was awarded by an order dated 12 October 2011.
3. The basic grievance of the insurance company is that the
deceased who was driving two wheeler was negligent on account of
high speed and further at the time when the impugned order was
passed, the multiplier should be taken as per the age of the parent of
the deceased. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance
company, therefore, submits that the impugned order be reversed or
atleast modified by reducing the claim of compensation.
1 of 3
Sayyed 909-FA.290.2012.doc
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the original applicants
relies upon paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Tribunal's judgment with
regard to the issue of negligence being attributable to the truck driver
and not to the deceased. He further submitted that post the impugned
judgment the Hon'ble Court has laid down in the case of National
Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.1, the multiplier to be
considered for arriving at the compensation.
5. I have heard Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant-
insurance company and Mr. Thorat, learned counsel for respondent
nos.1 and 2- original claimants.
6. With respect to the issue of negligence, the insurance
company has not examined the driver of the truck to prove their case
that the deceased who was driving two wheeler was negligent. The
Tribunal has considered the evidence in paragraphs 15 and 16 and has
given a finding that the truck driver was negligent in driving. It is also
important to note that the truck driver was charge-sheeted which
indicates atleast prima facie the negligence on the part of the said
driver. The evidence of the pillion rider who was with the deceased was
recorded by the Tribunal and who was also an eyewitness to the
incident. The said evidence has been very well considered by the
Tribunal in paragraphs 15 and 16 which shows that it was the truck
driver who was negligent since the truck came from the wrong side at a
high speed. Therefore, in my view, the submission made by the
insurance company with regard to the negligence of the deceased
cannot be accepted.
7. Insofar as the issue of multiplier is concerned, much water has
flown after the impugned judgment and now the parameters laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has to
be considered for arriving at the compensation. The compensation after
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680
2 of 3
Sayyed 909-FA.290.2012.doc
applying the parameters and the directions in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra) is as under :-
Particulars Amount
Monthly income Rs.4,000/-
(+): 40% future prospects Rs.1,600/-
Total Rs. Rs.5,600/-
Yearly income (5,600 X 12) Rs.67,200/-
½ (-) Deducting for living expenses (67,200/2) Rs.33,600/-
Multiplier (33,600 X 18) Total Income Rs.6,04,800/-
Loss of Consortium (Rs.48,000 X 2) Rs.96,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.7,36,000/-
(-) Awarded amount Rs.4,50,000/-
Total Enhanced Amount Rs.2,86,000/-
8. The total compensation as per Pranay Sethi's decision works
out to Rs.7,36,000/-. The original amount awarded is Rs,4,50,000/-.
Therefore, the original claimants are entitled to additional enhanced
compensation of Rs.2,86,000/- alongwith interest.
9. The statutory deposit be transferred to MACT, Pune and the
parties are at liberty to make application for withdrawing the same. The
original decretal amount alongwith the enhanced compensation
awarded by this order to be withdrawn by the original claimants
alongwith interest from the date of filing the application till realisation.
If any amount is withdrawn by the original claimants then the same
should be reduced from the total amount calculated by this order.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. Consequently, civil
application does not survive and is disposed of.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/04/2026 18:19:42 3 of 3
