[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Smt. Sandhya Wd/O Dilip Sayare (Sahare) ... vs Satish S/O Vishnu Durai And Another on 10 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:2189
fa.742.15-J.odt 1/9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.742 OF 2015
1. Smt. Sadhana wd/o. Dilip Sayare
(Sahare),
Aged 39 yrs., Occu.: Household.
2. Piyush s/o. Dilip Sayare (Sahare),
Aged 12 Yrs., Occu.: Student.
3. Gulabrao s/o. Damuji Sayare (Sahare),
Aged 69 yrs., Occu.: Nil.
4. Kaushalyabai w/o. Gulabrao Sayare
(Sahare),
Aged 64 yrs., Occu.: Household.
Appellant No.2 Minor Through M/G
through Appellant No.1.
All R/o. Sai Layout, Parshivni,
Dist. : Nagpur. ---APPELLANTS
---VERSUS---
1. Satish s/o. Vishnu Dhurai,
Aged Major, R/o. Ward No.1,
Parshivni, Dist. : Nagpur. (Original Respondent No.1)
2. The Manager,
IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., (Original Respondent No.2)
8th Flr., 701-A, Shriram Shyam Towers,
Kingsway, Sadar, Nagpur. ----RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Asghar Hussain, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. Amit M. Kukday, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fa.742.15-J.odt 2/9
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 21.01.2026.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 10.02.2026
JUDGMENT
. This is an Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short, 'M.V.Act) by the Original Claimants being not satisfied by
the Judgment and Award dated 30.07.2013 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, "the learned Tribunal"), Nagpur in
Claim Petition No.1235/2010 holding the deceased contributing to the
motor vehicular accident and awarding compensation of Rs.10,82,020/-.
2. The Appellants filed the above referred Claim Petition for
compensation under Section 166 of the M.V.Act with the contentions that,
they were the widow, son and parents of the deceased Dilip Gulabrao
Sayare (Sahare). The deceased met with a motor vehicular accident on
05.11.2010 while traveling on the two-wheeler from Mansar to Parshivni.
The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of another two-
wheeler which was coming from the opposite direction in rash and
negligent manner. The deceased was 38 years old and earning Rs.18,000/-
per month as the salary. They claimed the compensation to the tune of
Rs.23,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Both the
Respondents contested the Claim Petition by filing their respective written
statements. They denied the contentions of the Appellants. The
Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company contended that, it was the case of
contributory negligence.
3. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the
issue. The Appellant No.1 filed her evidence affidavit in support of the
Claim Petition. The Appellants examined the witness to prove the income
of the deceased. The Appellants brought on record the police papers and
other relevant documents in support of the Claim petition. No evidence
was led by the Respondents. Considering the evidence available on record,
the learned Tribunal passed the above referred Judgment and Award.
4. Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellants and learned
Advocate for the Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company. None for the
Respondent No.1. Perused the papers on record.
5. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellants that,
despite there being no evidence of contributory negligence, the learned
Tribunal held that, it was the case of 50% contributory negligence. The
said finding was not supported by any evidence. There was no specific
defence raised by the Insurance Company for contributory negligence.
While computing the amount of compensation, only Rs.25,000/- was
granted towards future prospect. Deduction was made as 1/3 instead of
1/4. The compensation be awarded in accordance with the settled position
of the law and the Appeal be allowed.
6. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Respondent
No.2 - Insurance Company that, it was the accident of head-on collision
and, therefore, it was the case of contributory negligence. The learned
Tribunal has rightly held 50% negligence on the part of the deceased and
no interference was called for in the same. On the point of quantum, he
submitted that, appropriate compensation is awarded. There were no
promotional avenue to the deceased. As regards future prospects is
concerned, had the deceased been alive, he would have got only 3% hike in
the salary. The amount towards future prospect was rightly considered.
The learned Tribunal has rightly considered the Claim Petition and no
interference is called for in the Judgment and Award and the Appeal be
dismissed.
7. As regards the issue of contributory negligence is concerned,
none of the parties have examined the eye witness to the accident. The
Appellant No.1 i.e. widow of the deceased, though examined herself as the
witness and the admission came in her cross-examination that, both the
motorcycles involved in the accident came from the opposite directions and
the accident took place, the said admission cannot form the basis to come
to the conclusion that, the accident was a result of contributory negligence
because in the cross-examination, she deposed that, she did not know how
the accident took place as she was not on the spot. She denied the
suggestion that, it was the case of head-on collision.
8. The Appellants brought on record the police papers, which
show that, the crime for rash and negligent driving and causing death by
negligence under the Indian Penal Code and under the relevant sections of
the M.V.Act was registered with the Parshivni Police Station against the
person, who was driving the other motorcycle which was involved in the
accident. The police papers include the Spot Panchanama at Exhibit 30.
There is no sketch of the spot of accident in the Spot Panchanama. Spot
Panchanama shows that, it was the West-East bound road connecting
Parshivni and Ramtek. The width of the road is not shown in the Spot
Panchanama. It shows that, the front side of both the motorcycles was
damaged. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jankabai Babruwan Bhawal
and Ors. [2020 (2) T.A.C. (Bom.), which was the Appeal under the Motor
Vehicles Act cited by the learned Advocate for the Appellants, there is
observations by the Single Bench of this Court that, merely because there
was head-on collision, does not mean that, there was contributory
negligence on the part of the driver of one of the vehicle. In absence of any
other material on record, except the police papers showing that, the above
referred crime for rash and negligence driving and causing death was
registered against the driver of the other motorcycle, the only interference
which can reasonably been drawn is that, the accident was not the result of
contributory negligence. It was not the specific pleading of the Respondent
No.2 - Insurance Company that, the accident was the result of
contributory negligence. There is just passing pleading to that effect in the
written statement that, "if this Hon'ble Tribunal finds that the petitioners
are entitled for compensation, in that event, the aspect of the contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased as well as owner and Insurance
Company of the motorcycle may kindly be considered and the award be
apportioned accordingly". Under such circumstances, the finding recorded
by the learned Tribunal in respect of contributory negligence, do not find
support from any material on record, therefore, unsustainable.
9. As regards the quantum is concerned, there is no grievance of
the Appellant in respect of the monthly income of the deceased, which is
considered by the learned Tribunal. There cannot be any dispute that, this
being the death claim, the compensation will have to be computed in
accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt)
and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, [(2009) 6 SCC
121], National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others [(2017)
16 SCC 680] and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram
@ Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130]. The Claimants are 4 in
number and they are the widow, son and parents of the deceased and as
per the pleadings in the Claim Petition, they were dependant on the
earning of the deceased. Therefore, deduction towards personal and living
expenses of deceased will be 1/4. There is no quarrel in respect of the
multiplier of 15 as considered by the learned Tribunal. The evidence of
witness No.2 examined by the Appellants shows that, the deceased was in
permanent service of the Education Institution from 01.09.1990 as an
Assistant in Laboratory. The evidence of this witness shows that, the
deceased had no promotional avenue. However, yearly increment was 3%.
This aspect is considered by the learned Tribunal in para 20 of the
Judgment and accordingly, awarded Rs.25,000/- towards future prospects
for 15 years. On the basis of evidence on record, the said finding appears
proper. The Appellants would be entitled for spousal, parental and filial
consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each and Rs.15,000/- each towards
funeral expenses and loss of estate. With these calculation, the
compensation is recalculated as under :
1. Rs.17742/- per month towards the monthly income Rs. 17,742/-
of the deceased. per month.
2. Yearly Income (Rs. 17,742 X 12) Rs. 2,12,904/-
3. 1/4th deduction towards personal and living (-)Rs. 53,226/-
expenses which comes of Rs.53226/-.
Total Income - Rs. 1,59,678/-
4. Annual Income of the deceased multiplied by Rs. 23,95,170/-
multiplier of 15. (Rs.159678/- x 15)
5. Towards consortium (40,000/- x 4) (+)Rs. 160,000/-
6. Funeral Expenses (+)Rs. 15,000/-
7. Loss of Estate (+)Rs. 15,000/-
8 Towards future prospects as computed by the Tribunal (+)Rs. 25,000/-
Total Compensation Payable to the Claimants. Rs. 26,10,170/-
10. In the light of the above discussions, the Appellants shall be
entitled for the above referred compensation from the Respondents jointly
and severally with the interest at the rate of 7.5% as granted by the learned
Tribunal from 09.12.2010 till its realization. The said amount would be
inclusive of the no fault liability amount. The amount of compensation is
apportioned as follows.
i] Appellant No.1 - Widow - Rs. 16,10,170/-
ii] Appellant No.2 - Son -- Rs. 8,00,000/-
iii] Appellant Nos.3 & 4 - Parents - Rs. 1,00,000/- each.
11. The Award passed by the learned Tribunal stands modified to
the above extent. The other directions of the learned Tribunal regarding
the mode of payment of compensation shall remain intact. The Appellants
shall pay the deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. The Appeal stands
disposed of accordingly.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/02/2026 16:09:19
