[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Smt. Suman Manohar Jadhav And Ors on 10 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:17302
HMK 917. FA-1055-2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1055 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2824 OF 2013
ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Limited ....Appellant/Applicant
PRACHI
PRANESH
NANDIWADEKAR
Digitally signed
by PRACHI
PRANESH
NANDIWADEKAR
Versus
Date: 2026.04.10
18:33:22 +0530
Suman Manohar Jadhav & Ors. ....Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
Mr. Nikhil Mehta i/by KMC Legal Venture for the Appellant/Applicant.
Mr. Amol A. Gatne i/by Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh for Respondent Nos. 1 to
5.
__________________________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 10th APRIL 2026
P. C. :
1. By consent, taken up for final hearing.
2. The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against an
order dated 06th December, 2012 passed by the MACT, Pune, whereby, an
amount of Rs.13,63,500/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was
granted.
3. I have heard Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company
and Mr. Gatne, learned counsel for the original claimants.
4. On 09th April, 2010 at about 13:45 hours, Mr. Manohar Jadhav
alongwith his nephew was riding a motor cycle and when he reached Warje
Over bridge, one truck trailer which was ahead of the motor cycle, all of a
1 of 4
HMK 917. FA-1055-2016.doc
sudden without giving any signal, applied brake, which resulted into the
motor cycle which was driven by Mr. Manohar Jadhav dashed into the
truck, resulting into the death of Mr. Manohar Jadhav.
5. The dependents of the deceased, therefore, filed an application for
compensation. The Tribunal considered income after reducing expenses at
Rs.1 lakh and applied multiplier of 15. The Tribunal also awarded various
other amounts under other heads and finally the said compensation was
worked out at Rs.13,63,500/- alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum.
6. Mr. Mehta's first submission is that the finding of the Tribunal that
the negligence of the driver of trailer estimated at 90% is on the higher
side. He submits that the trailer does not move at a faster speed and,
therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in considering this factor while
contributing negligence to the extent of 90%. He, therefore, submits that
the Tribunal's order is required to be modified by reducing the negligence
of the driver of trailer to 80%.
7. Mr. Gatne, learned counsel for the original claimants has opposed the
above submission. The learned counsel submits that the driver of trailer
was not examined, whereas, the pillion rider was examined, who was the
eyewitness of the incident and, therefore, such estimate made by the Court
of first instance should be interfered with. The learned counsel stated that
consortium has not been considered at a lower figure, though, there are five
dependents. He further submitted that no interference is required of the
impugned order.
8. I have heard Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company
and Mr. Gatne, learned counsel for the claimants.
9. Insofar as the percentage of negligence is concenred, the claimants
2 of 4
HMK 917. FA-1055-2016.doc
had led the evidence of pillion rider, whereas the Insurance Company did
not led the evidence of the driver of the trailer. Therefore, to that extent,
Mr. Gatne submission is justified. However, the Court cannot lose sight of
the fact that the trailer generally do not move at a faster speed even on the
highways and, therefore, at a place where this incident happened, which
was in the city, the attribution of 90% negligence of the driver of the trailer
on the ground of rash driving, cannot be accepted. At the end of the day, it
is only a question of estimate, though, which none of us are an expert or
the eyewitness and even an eyewitness cannot estimate the percentage
precisely. Therefore, in the interest of justice and in the facts of the present
case, the negligence attributed to the driver of the trailer can be considered
at 80% and balance 20% is attributable to the deceased.
10. The impugned order has not considered the future prospects of the
deceased, which according to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 1 has to be
considered while working out the compensation. It is also important to note
that the consortium amount estimated by the Tribunal is on the lower side.
Therefore, keeping in mind of these factors and after applying the
parameters led by Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Magma General Insurance
Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. 2, the revised
computation of compensation is as under :-
Head of Compensation Amount
1. Annual Income = Rs.1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
(after 1/3rd deduction para 12 of
impugned judgment)
2. Future prospects @ 40% = Rs.40,000/- Rs. 1,40,000/-
(as per para 59.4 of Pranay Sethi) 2017
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680
2 (2018) 18 scc 130
3 of 4
HMK 917. FA-1055-2016.doc
(16) SCC 680)
3. Multiplier 15 (age of 40) - 15 x Rs. 21,00,000/-
Rs.1,40,000/- (last line para 12)
4. Loss of dependency Rs. 21,00,000/-
5. Loss of consortium (Rs.48,000 x 5) Rs. 2,40,000/-
(as per para 59.8 of Pranay Sethi) &
(Magma General Insurance vs. Nanu
Ram 2018 (18) SCC 130)
6. Loss of estatte Rs. 15,000/-
(as per para 59.8 of Pranay Sethi)
7. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
(as per para 59.8 of Pranay Sethi)
8. Total amount Rs. 23,70,000/-
9. Deduction towards 20% negligence Rs. 18,96,000/-
(Rs.4,74,000/-)
10. Awarded amount by Tribunal Rs. 13,63,500/-
11. Enhanced (difference amount) Rs. 5,32,500/-
@ 7.5%
11. In view of above, the original claimants are entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs. 5,32,500/- alongiwth interest @ 7.5% per annum.
12. Statutory deposit alongwith interest to be transferred to the MACT,
Pune.
13. The original claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation in
addition to the original amount awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest
@ 7.5% per annum.
14. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. Consequently, Civil Application
does not survive and is disposed of accordingly.
[[[ [ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
4 of 4
