[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Smt. Rekha Suresh Shegokar And 4 Others vs Sk. Hanif Sk. Rauf And 2 Others on 10 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:2133
1 fa437.2015.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.437/2015
1. Smt. Rekha Suresh Shegokar,
aged about 37 years.
2. Ritesh Suresh Shegokar,
aged about 17 years.
Minor through Natural Guardian
Mother Appellant No.1-Smt. Rekha
Suresh Shegokar.
3. Pranesh Suresh Shegokar,
aged about 18 years.
4. Sau. Kaushalya Kisanrao Shegokar,
aged about 19 Yrs.
5. Kisanrao Shivram Shegokar. Deleted as per order
dated 08.03.2024 passed
by Registrar (J.).
All R/o Borgaon Munju,
Tah. and Distt. Akola. ... Appellants
(Ori. Appellants)
- Versus -
1. Sk. Hanif Sk. Rauf,
aged abut 34 years, Occu. Driver,
R/o Rasulabad , Tah. Arvi,
Distt. Wardha.
2. Niyajoddin Husnhoddin Quazi,
R/o 135, Rasulabad, Tah. Arvi,
Distt. Wardha.
2 fa437.2015.odt
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Jayshree Bhavan, Near Indira Market,
Vanjari Chowk, Wardha 442 001. ... Respondents
(Ori. Non-Applicants)
-----------------
Mr. S.A. Mohta, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. N.P. Dolas, Advocate h/f. Mr. Mohd. Ateeque, Advocate for the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Lalit Limaye, Advocate for the Respondent No.3.
----------------
CORAM: NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATED : 10.02.2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is an Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short "M.V. Act") by the original claimants. They are
aggrieved by 50% contributory negligence attributed to the deceased
by the learned Tribunal and on the point of quantum. The learned
Tribunal has decided the claim petition by the judgment and award
dated 20.09.2014 awarding compensation of Rs.9,35,000/- with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellants, learned
Advocate for the Insurance Company and the learned Advocate for
the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. With their assistance perused the
papers.
3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the claimants that
this appeal is filed on two grounds (i) 50% contributory negligence
and (ii) quantum. He submits that, the offending vehicle was the
truck and the crime was registered against the driver of the truck.
3 fa437.2015.odt
The spot-panchanama shows that, the accident took place in the
middle of the road. The learned Tribunal ought not to have
considered the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
He submitted that, though there was Income Tax Returns of the
deceased filed on record by the claimants, the learned Tribunal
considered the income of the deceased at Rs.180,000/-. He
submitted that, the Appeal be allowed by setting aside the
observations of 50% contributory negligence and the income of the
deceased as per last Income Tax Return be considered.
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Insurance
Company and the learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2
that, the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the material
available on record. No eye witness was examined by the claimants.
The spot-panchanama shows the brake marks of the car which was
being driven by the deceased and, therefore, 50% contributory
negligence of the deceased is rightly considered by the learned
Tribunal. As regards the quantum, he submitted that, the evidence
on record goes to show that, the business of the deceased was
continued and looked after by the widow and, therefore, there was
no loss of earning after the death. It is submitted that, no
interference was called for in the judgment and award passed by the
learned Tribunal.
5. As regards the aspect of the contributory negligence is
concerned, undisputedly, none of the parties have examined eye
witness to the accident. The claimants relied on the police papers in
support of their claim petition. The relevant document from the
4 fa437.2015.odt
police papers is the spot panchanama below Exh.34. The said spot
panchanama is having sketch of the spot of incident. Close scrutiny
of the said sketch shows that, the spot of accident was almost in the
middle of the road, slightly towards the southern side of the road.
The deceased was travelling from east towards west and the truck
was coming from west and proceeding towards east. The sketch
shows the tyre marks from the northern side of the road coming
towards the southern side road. This indicates that, the car which
was being driven by the deceased had gone on the wrong side and
thereafter it was taken towards the proper side and the accident
took place. There are no brake marks on the side of the truck.
Undisputedly, the time of accident was between 08.00 p.m. to 08.30
p.m. The learned Tribunal appreciated the spot panchanama and
recorded the finding that, the deceased was 50% negligent in the
accident. The relevant observations on the point of negligence is in
paragraph Nos.11 to 14. The said paragraphs from the judgment of
the learned Tribunal are reproduced below:-
"11. Site of the collision is almost in the middle of the
road for the truck proceeding towards the east, there
were no brake marks behind the truck. Likewise, there
were no brake marks towards the East. Those marks
were to the North East from the site of the collision and
over the Northern side slope of the road. Obviously
therefore two vehicles had, after the collision
proceeded to the North Eastern side on the road. The
car had got caught under the front wheel buffer of the
truck and it was not released from the grip till the end
when the glass had broken.
12. In absence of oral evidence, both the learned
advocates put their interpretations to the circumstances
indicated by the spot panchanama. As stated above,
according to the learned advocate for the claimants,
5 fa437.2015.odt
after giving dash the truck had pushed back the car
driven by the deceased towards North East. On the
other hand, the learned advocate for the Insurance
Company submitted that the car, in an attempt to
overtake another vehicle, had crossed to the wrong side
of the road and then taken a diagonal turn applying the
brakes to avoid collision with incoming truck. It was
because of that, tyre marks were left but unfortunately
the car had collided against the truck. Therefore,
according to him, the entire fault was that of the
deceased.
13. The burden to prove rashness and negligence is
naturally on the claimants. Though there was no eye
witness to the accident, the claimants could have
brought on record evidence about the width of the
road, the length of the site of collision
(GHATNASTHAL) from the North and Southern
boundaries of the road and so on. This is required
because except the poorly drawn spot panchanama and
the sketch attached to it, there is no other evidence to
adjudicate the question of rashness and negligence.
The road had slopes on both the sides and it is not
possible to overrule either or accept either of the
arguments in its entirety. It is significant to note that
there were no brake marks to the West side of collision
from which direction the truck was proceeding.
Obviously, it was not required to brake its speed. The
fact that pieces of glass were lying only at the farthest
end of the brake marks is also significant. If there was a
head on collision at the site indicated as
"GHATNASTHAL", pieces of glass ought to have been
found there.
14. Apart from the above, one thing is clear. There
was a head on collision between two vehicles almost in
the middle of the road. In the circumstances, it is not
possible to hold that the truck driver alone was
responsible for the accident. If rashness and negligence
is to be attributed, both the drivers shall have to be
held equally responsible for the accident. Therefore,
6 fa437.2015.odt
this is a fit case to hold that the truck driver and
deceased had equally contributed by their rash and
negligent driving for the accident and consequent
death of the deceased. The issue no.1 is, therefore,
answered as proved and no.2 as partly proved."
6. The re-appreciation of the spot-panchanama shows that, the
conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal is reasonable and possible
one. The spot-panchanama do not show that, the accident took
place due to the entire negligence of the truck driver. The
observations recorded by the learned Tribunal in respect of the
negligence are borne out of the material available on record and I
see no reason to differ with the same and the same is upheld.
7. As regards the aspect of quantum is concerned, the evidence
on record goes to show that, the deceased was running the Trading
Business under the name and style 'M/s. Shri Gajanan Services,
Akola' which provided the services for Sony Products. To prove the
income of the deceased, the claimants relied on the Income Tax
Returns of the deceased, for the Assessment Years 2009-2010,
2010-2011 and 2011-2012. The last Income Tax Return shows that,
the Total Income of deceased was Rs.2,40,876/-. The evidence of
the widow of deceased shows that, after the death of her husband,
she was looking after the business. There were 12 to 14 labourers
in the shop. Technicians were doing the work of repairing the TV,
Radio and other appliances and some times they are sending the
appliances to the concerned Company for repairing. The earlier
Technicians were working in their shop. The service station of the
Sony Company was still with them. This evidence on record goes to
7 fa437.2015.odt
show that, after the deceased, the proprietary concern was
functioning and there was no total loss to the claimants. However,
there could be some loss of supervision. The learned Tribunal
considered the evidence available on record and accepted the yearly
loss of income of Rs.18,00,000/- i.e. Rs.15,000/- per month. The
observations of the learned Tribunal shows that, the deceased was
holding certificate of Technical Institute, Akola for repairing TV,
Radio and Amplifiers. Considering the evidence on record loss of
earning to Rs.15,000/- per month, towards the supervision loss
appears to be reasonable and proper.
8. Both the sides agree that, the learned Tribunal has not
considered the future prospects and consortium in the light of
decisions in Sarla Verma (smt) and ors. V/s. Delhi Transport
Corporation and anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance
Company Limited V/s. Pranay Sethi and ors. , (2017) 16 SCC 680
and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru
Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130. In the light of the above decisions, there
has to be addition of 25% towards the future prospects and
Rs.40,000/- each towards Consortium. The Amount of compensation
is accordingly re-calculated as under:-
Sr. No. Heads Amount
1 Amount of yearly Rs.15,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,80,000/-
Income of the deceased
2 Amount of Future Rs.1,80,000/- + Rs.45,000/- = Rs.2,25,000/-
Prospects (25% of the
yearly Income)
3 Amount towards 1/3rd Rs.2,25,000/- ÷ 3 = Rs.75,000/-
Deductions Rs.2,25,000/- Rs.75,000/ = Rs.1,50,000/-
4 Amount after applying Rs.1,50,000/- x 15 = Rs.22,50,000/-
8 fa437.2015.odt
Multiplier of '15'
5 Deduction towards 50% Rs.11,25,000/-
contributory negligence
6 Amount of Consortium Rs.40,000 x 3 = Rs.1,20,000/-
for 3 Appellants
7 Total amount of Rs.12,45,000/-
compensation (5+6)
9. In view of the above, following order is passed.
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned award stands modified to the extent that, the
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall pay to the Appellants a sum of
Rs.12,45,000/- with the same rate of interest as directed by the
Tribunal.
(iii) The Appellant No.1-wife would be entitled for Rs.8,45,000/-
and remaining amount be apportioned equally between two sons.
(iv) The amount of Rs.9,35,000/- which is already deposited by
the Insurance Company be adjusted in the above referred enhanced
compensation amount which is quantified above.
(v) The remaining amount be deposited in this Court within a
period of eight (8) weeks.
(vi) Record and proceedings be sent back to the learned Tribunal.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/02/2026 19:46:31
