Smt. Sangeeta Wd/O Vitthal @ Vithoba ... vs Harishkumar Ramdas Sahgal And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 1210 Bom

Bombay High Court

Smt. Sangeeta Wd/O Vitthal @ Vithoba ... vs Harishkumar Ramdas Sahgal And Another on 3 February, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:1694




                                                1                      15.fa1162.2015.doc



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 1162 OF 2015

              1. Smt. Sangeeta wd/o Vitthal @ Vithoba Umate,
              aged 48 years, Occu.: Household.

              2. Abhijeet s/o Vitthal @ Vithoba Umate,
              aged 22 years, Occu.: Nil
              (Mentally Retarded)

              3. Ku. Apeksha d/o Vitthal @ Vithoba Umate,      ...Appellants
              aged 16 years, Occu. :Student.

              Appellant No.3 Minor through M/G Appellant No.1.
              All R/o Plot No.76, Kinkhade layout, Binaki Nagpur.
                     - Versus -
              1. Harishkumar Ramdas Sahgal,
              aged Major, R/o Plot No. 201,
              Sant Kavram Apartment Vaishali Nagar,
              Nagpur (Ori. Resp. No.1)

              2. The New India Assurance co. Ltd.,
              through Branch Manager,
              Shankar Nagar Square,
              at Present MECL Building,
              5th Floor, Seminary Hills,
              Nagpur (Ori. Res. No.2)                    .... Respondents

                     -----------------
              Mr. Asghar Hussain, Advocate for the appellants.
              Mr. Sandeep Marathe, Advocate for respondent No.2.
                   ----------------
                                   2                15.fa1162.2015.doc

CORAM: NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 20.01.2026.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT:03.02.2026.


JUDGMENT

1) This is an Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) filed by the original

claimants against the decision of the learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, (for short Tribunal) in

Claim Petition No.415/2010 dated 23.07.2015, holding the

deceased responsible for the accident to the extent of 50%.

2) The Appellants filed above referred Claim

Petition for compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-, by contending

that Vitthal @ Vithoba Laxmanrao Umate, who was the

husband of the Appellant No.1 and father of Appellant

Nos.2 and 3, succumbed to the injuries suffered in the

Motor Vehicular Accident occurred on 27.03.2010, when

the deceased was travelling on the two wheeler within the

limits of Imamwada Police Station, Nagpur, he gave dash to

the truck, which was suddenly stopped without giving any 3 15.fa1162.2015.doc

signal or indicator. The claim petition was resisted by the

respondent No.2 Insurance Company by filing written

statement. The respondent No.1- owner of the vehicle did

not appear and contested the claim petition and therefore,

the same was proceeded against him ex-parte. Considering

the evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal

quantified the amount of compensation to the tune of

Rs.06,97,000/-. However, by considering the 50%

contributory negligence on the part of deceased, awarded

the compensation of Rs.3,40,000/- with interest @ 7.5

percent.

3) Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellants

and the learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2

Insurance Company. None appeared for respondent No.1.

Scrutinized the record.

4) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the

Appellants that, the offence was registered against the

truck driver. No witness was examined by the Insurance 4 15.fa1162.2015.doc

Company to prove that, the deceased was negligent in

driving the two wheeler. The driver of the truck was not

examined to prove the aspect of contributory negligence.

In absence of any evidence to show the contributory

negligence on the part of the deceased, the learned

Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased had contributed

to the accident.

5) He further submitted that, the learned Tribunal

erroneously considered the income of the deceased as

Rs.6,500/- though the salary of the deceased was shown to

be Rs.10,300/- per month. The learned Tribunal considered

the amount received by the Appellant No.1, as the salary of

the deceased. He further submitted that, the compensation

under the various heads be awarded as per the decisions in

Sarla Warma and ors. Delhi Transport Corporation and

another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance

Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16)

SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance company 5 15.fa1162.2015.doc

Limited .X Naluram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC

130.

6) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the

Insurance Company that, the evidence available on record

clearly shows that, the victim dashed on the back side of

the truck which shows that, he was responsible for his

accidental death. The learned Tribunal held the

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased on the

basis of the material available on record and no fault can be

found with the said findings in respect of contributory

negligence. He further submitted that, the evidence led by

the Appellant to prove the income of the deceased was

untrustworthy and cannot be relied. No salary slip was

brought on record by the Appellants. The certificate

showing the monthly income of the deceased was prepared

on the instructions of the partner of the firm and therefore,

cannot be accepted. The material on record goes to show

that, the salary of the fifteen employees was paid by the 6 15.fa1162.2015.doc

witness and if the total amount of salary in the profit and

loss account is seen, the monthly income of each employee

comes to Rs.3,000/-. The learned Tribunal has properly

appreciated the evidence available on record and no

interference was called for in the impugned judgment and

Award and the Appeal therefore is liable to be dismissed.

7) As regards the aspect of the contributory

negligence is concerned, the learned Tribunal considered

that, the truck stopped on account of stagnant water and

the deceased also could not control the two wheeler and

therefore, there was contributory negligence of 50% each.

Undisputedly, no eye witness to the accident was examined

by any of the parties. The Appellant No.1 examined herself

as the witness in support of the claim petition. Though the

admission has come in her cross examination that, there

was a ditch, which was filled with water and the truck

driver had applied breaks and lowered the speed of the

truck, admittedly the Appellant No.1 was not the eye 7 15.fa1162.2015.doc

witness to the accident as it has clearly came in her cross-

examination that, she had not witnessed the accident.

Therefore, the said admission in the cross-examination

that, the truck driver applied breaks and lowered the speed

due to the ditch will not be of any advantage to the

Insurance Company or the Respondents. The Police papers

show and on which there is no dispute is that, the crime for

rash and negligent driving and causing death by the

negligence was registered against the driver of the truck to

which the deceased dashed. The Appellants have on the

basis of Police papers, demonstrated that, the accident

occurred due to the negligence of the truck driver. Perusal

of the written statement filed by the Insurance Company

below Exh.13 shows that, they had raised the contention

that, the accident occurred on account of rash and

negligent driving by the deceased. However, no evidence

was led by the Insurance Company to prove the said

pleadings. Under such circumstances, holding the deceased 8 15.fa1162.2015.doc

responsible for the accident to the extent of 50% cannot be

approved.

8) As regards the monthly income of the deceased is

concerned, the Appellants examined witness No.2 Raju

Bhoyar to show that, the deceased was working in his

Company from 2005 and receiving salary of Rs.10,300/-

per month. His evidence shows that, in the year 2010,

fifteen persons might have been working in his partnership

firm, and they used to make the payment to the employees

in cash and were not taking the acknowledgment about the

receipt of the payment. His evidence further shows that no

muster roll or pay roll was maintained. His evidence

further shows that, the Appellant No.1 was presently

getting Rs.6,500/- per month after the death of the

deceased. My attention is drawn to Exh.39, which is the

balance-sheet of the said partnership firm. The profit and

loss account statement enclosed to the balance-sheet

ending on 30th March 2010 shows that the heading 'salary 9 15.fa1162.2015.doc

to staff' and the amount shown against the same is

Rs.5,64,455/-. As seen earlier, the said partnership firm

was having 15 employees in the year 2010. This material

on record shows that, the per month salary of each

employee would come to little over of Rs. 3,000/- per

month. This interference flows from the evidence available

on record as discussed above. However, the learned

Tribunal considered the per month income of deceased at

Rs. 6000/-. Hence, no interference is called in the

determination of monthly income of deceased by the

learned Tribunal.

9) As regards the amount of compensation towards

other heads such as funeral expenses, loss of estate and

consortium are concerned, they are required to be

computed in the above referred judgments cited by the

learned Advocate for the Appellants. Considering the

aforesaid judgments, the Appellants would be entitled for

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards 10 15.fa1162.2015.doc

loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- each, towards consortium.

Considering that, the deceased was above 40 years of age,

there will be addition of 25% towards, future prospects as

there is no evidence to show that, the deceased had a

permanent job. The learned Tribunal has awarded

Rs.25000/- towards the treatment charges of the specially

abled child of the deceased. Considering the nature of

proceedings, no interference is called for in the said

amount.

10) In view of the above discussion, the compensation

payable to the Appellants is computed as under:-

Per month income of the deceased...... Rs. 6,000/-

                                         (x)        12
Yearly income of the deceased...+             Rs. 72,000/-
25% addition to future prospects         + Rs. 18,000/-
                                         Total Rs.90,000/-

1/3rd deduction for personal and living [-]Rs. 30,000/- expenses of deceased Loss of dependency of petitioners, per = Rs. 60,000/-

year
Multiplier as per age of                 [X]         13
deceased(between age group 46 to 50)
Compensation for loss of income          Rs. 07,80,000/-
                                    11                  15.fa1162.2015.doc

Funeral expenses                          Rs.     15,000/-
Loss of Estate                            Rs.     15,000/-
Loss of Consortium @ Rs. 40,000/- to      Rs.   1,20,000/-
each claimant
Treatment charges to specially abled      Rs.    25,000/-
son of the deceased
Total                                     Rs.   09,55,000/-
Rupees Nine lacs fifty five thousand
only.


11)            In view of above, the following order is passed.

                                ORDER

        i)        The Appeal is partly allowed with no orders

        as to costs.

        ii)        The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall jointly

and severally pay the amount of Rs.09,55,000/-

(Rupees Nine lacs fifty five thousand only) inclusive of

no fault liability amount of Rs. 50,000/- if any, to the

Appellants with interest @ 7.5% per annum from

21.03.2011 till realisation of the amount.

iii) The rest of the operative order in respect of

the apportionment and depositing the same in the 12 15.fa1162.2015.doc

fixed deposit shall remain intact. The award passed by

the learned Tribunal stands modified accordingly.

iv) The Record and Proceedings be sent back

to the learned Tribunal.

(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)

Kavita.

Signed by: Kavita P Tayade Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 03/02/2026 11:24:21