[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Smt. Ashadevi Wd/O Akhileshwar Singh ... vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thr. ... on 16 February, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:2659




         1/11                                                   Judg.fa.738.2010.odt



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

                                FIRST APPEAL NO. 738 OF 2010


         1.     Smt. Ashadevi wd/o Akhileshwar Singh
                Aged about : 36 Years; Occu : Housewife;

         2.     Ku. Anupriya d/o Akhileshwar Singh
                Aged about : 19 Years; Occu : Nil;

         3.     Ku. Sonal alias Suman d/o Akhileshwar
                Singh, Aged about : 16 Years; Occu :
                Student;

                Appellant No.3 Acting through her natural
                guardian mother, Appellant No.1.

                All R/o Village-Bajitpur, Post Kewani, Tahsil
                Gadkha, District Chhapra (Bihar).                ... APPELLANTS

                     VERSUS

         1.     The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
                Acting through its Divisional Manager,
                "Udham", Shankar Nagar, West High Court
                Road, Nagpur.

         2.     Mohd. Rafique Mohd. Habib
                Aged Major, Occu : Auto Rickshaw Driver;
                R/o Siddarth Nagar, Nagpur

         3.     The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
                Through its Manager, Central Avenue
                Branch, Central Avenue Road, Gandhibagh,
                Nagpur.

         4.     Sureshkumar A. Mittal
                Aged : Major; Occupation : Not Known;
 2/11                                                      Judg.fa.738.2010.odt




       R/o 36, Suryanagar, Old Pardi Naka, Nagpur
       Tahsil and District Nagpur.

5.     Rajendra Singh s/o Devlal Singh
       Aged about : 55 Years; Occu : Nil;

       [Deleted as     per   Court's   order   dtd.
       18.12.2017]

6.     Smt. Munakadevi w/o Rajendra Singh
       Aged about : 40 Years; Occu : Housewife;

       Both R/o Village-Bijitpur, Post Kewani,
       Tahsil Gadkha, District Chhapra (Bihar).           ... RESPONDENTS

Mr. S. N. Kumar, Advocate for Appellants.
Ms. S. H. Bhatia, Advocate for Respondent No.1/Insurance Company.
None for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6.

                  CORAM                           : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
                  ARGUMENTS HEARD ON              : JANUARY 14, 2026.
                  PRONOUNCED ON                   : FEBRUARY 16, 2026.


JUDGMENT

. Heard Mr. S. N. Kumar, learned Counsel for the Appellants and

Ms. S. H. Bhatia, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Insurance

Company. None appeared for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6. Respondent No.5 is

deleted.

2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 7/4/2008

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 3/11 Judg.fa.738.2010.odt

546/1998 to the extent of not awarding compensation as per the claim made

by the Appellants, present Appeal came to be filed for enhancement of

compensation at the instance of Appellants.

3. It is pertinent to note that the Appellants have established that the

deceased was expired in the road accident and they are entitled for

compensation. So also the offending vehicle was duly insured, and accordingly,

the Respondents are responsible to pay the compensation. Accordingly, the

Respondents have neither filed Cross Objection nor challenged the Judgment

of the Tribunal independently in the matter. As such, the only issue involved in

the present Appeal is as to whether the learned Tribunal has awarded just and

fair compensation to the Appellant or not.

4. It is stated by the Appellants that deceased was working as skilled

Moulder with M/s Jaiswal Neco Limited, F-8/1, MIDC, Industrial Estate,

Hingna Road, Nagpur. The deceased was getting monthly salary of Rs. 2157/-

including HRA, PF and Bonus. The working hours of the deceased in the

Company were from 7.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. His family being consisting of five

to six people, who were totally dependents on him, he used to do the business

of fruit vendor by installing the shop at Tractor Company Square, MIDC, 4/11 Judg.fa.738.2010.odt

Nagpur during the evening from 4.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. As such, he was

earning Rs.3000/- per month from the fruit shop.

5. On 17/12/1993 at about 6.00 a.m. on Nagpur-Hingna Road, the

deceased was travelling in the Autorickshaw, the said ricksha was collided with

scooter and thereby the autorickshaw turned turtle, due to which, deceased

sustained injuries to both the legs. He was then referred to the Meyo Hospital,

Nagpur, where he succumbed to the injuries on 20/12/1993. The

Appellants/Claimants, therefore, filed Application under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act for compensation.

6. To prove the case, Appellant No.1 - Ashadevi has examined

herself before the Tribunal and stated that the deceased was getting monthly

salary of Rs.2157/- including HRA, PF and Bonus and to establish this fact she

has produced on record the salary certificate issued by M/s Jaiswal Neco Ltd.

and Contractor M/s Srikanta & Co. She has also stated that besides the job the

deceased was doing business of fruit vendor at Tractor Company Chowk,

MIDC, Nagpur in the evening hours. As such, he was receiving the salary near

about Rs.10,000/- per month. The Appellants as well as his parents were fully

dependent upon the deceased, hence, the Appellants have claimed for just and

fair compensation in the matter.

5/11 Judg.fa.738.2010.odt

7. In support of the case before the Tribunal, the Appellants have

examined the Manager of M/s Srikanta & Company, namely, Ramji Singh who

has supported the version of the Appellant No.1 that deceased was getting

monthly salary of Rs.2157/- from the Company and also proved the certificate

issued by him.

8. It is pertinent to note that the Respondent No.1/Insurance

Company had cross-examined the Appellant No.1 and her witness but did not

examine any witness on their behalf. As such, the learned Tribunal proceeded

to decide the application and by Judgment dated 7/4/2008 decided the

Application and awarded compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- inclusive of the

amount of Rs.25,000/- towards no fault liability.

9. The Appellants being aggrieved by the said Judgment to the

extent of not awarding just and fair compensation, approached before this

Court by raising various grounds, more particularly, the recent Judgments of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as this Court in the matter, which

are as under :

(i) National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017)

16 Supreme Court Cases 680;

 6/11                                                      Judg.fa.738.2010.odt



(ii)    Dulcina Fernandes and Others V/s Joaquim Xavier Cruz and Another,

        2014(2) Mh.L.J. 510;

(iii) Minu Rout and Another V/s Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and Others,

2014(2) Mh.L.J. 534;

(iv) Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and Others V/s Kasam Daud Kumbhar and

Others, (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 237;

(v) Amresh Kumari V/s Niranjan Lal Jagdish PD. Jain and Others, (2015) 4

Supreme Court Cases 433;

(vi) Mohinder Kaur and Others V/s Hira Nand Sindhi (Ghoriwala) and

Another, (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 434; and

(vii) Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Nanu Ram and Ors. (2018)

18 SCC 130.

10. The Appellants have pointed out that as per the law laid down in

the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the Appellants are entitled for compensation

under various conventional heads, which are not awarded in the present

matter. It is also pointed out that there were total six dependents of the

deceased, and therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed error by

deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses. According to him, in 7/11 Judg.fa.738.2010.odt

view of the Judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra) the deduction should have been

1/5th where the number of dependents in the family exceeds six in number.

11. It is further pointed out that the Appellant has categorically stated

in their Application before the Tribunal that in addition to the job with M/s

Jaiswal Neco Ltd, he was doing business of selling the fruits and was earning

Rs.3000/- per month, however, this earning was not at all considered by the

learned Tribunal in the matter. For this proposition, the Appellants have relied

upon the Judgments of Dulcina Fernandes (supra) and Minu Rout (supra),

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while deciding the Claim

Petition, the Tribunal must decide the application on the touch-stone of

preponderance of probabilities and not on the basis of proof beyond

reasonable doubt and the oral evidence recorded before the Tribunal in regard

to the income of the deceased, which is not controverted, needs to be accepted

by the Tribunal in the matter. However, these settled principles of law are not

considered by the Tribunal while determining the correct monthly income of

the deceased. As such, the Appellants claimed enhancement in the matter by

considering the monthly income of the deceased around Rs.5100/- per month.

12. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Insurance Company has 8/11 Judg.fa.738.2010.odt

strongly opposed the present Appeal. It is pointed out by the Respondent No.1

that the Appellant No.1 was cross-examined by the Insurance Company and in

cross-examination it is admitted by the Appellant No.1 that she possessed no

documents nor filed anything on record to prove that deceased was a fruit

vendor. Hence, considering the fact that since there was no document available

on record, merely on the statement of the Appellant No.1, who is admittedly

not residing with the deceased, cannot be accepted in the matter. Hence, the

Respondent No.1 has denied the claim of the Appellants for enhancement of

compensation amount.

13. In the abovesaid facts and circumstances of the matter and on

perusal of the record, it will be relevant to consider the fact that deceased was

earning Rs.2157/- as monthly salary from M/s Jaiswal Neco Company Ltd.

This fact is proved by the Appellant. The submission of the Appellants in

respect of earning of the deceased by doing business of fruit vendor cannot be

disbelieved, because immediately after filing of the Claim Petition, this fact

was amended in the Petition on 21/4/1998 itself. This fact was not denied by

the Respondents in the matter. The Appellant No.1/widow of the deceased has

categorically stated in her deposition that he was doing the business of fruit

vendor. As such, by oral evidence, Appellant proved the fact that deceased was 9/11 Judg.fa.738.2010.odt

a fruit vendor. The Appellant is right in saying that after the death of deceased

and recording evidence, there was a long span of time, hence, the Appellant

could not produce corroborative evidence in support of her submission.

14. Considering the fact that oral evidence of the Claimants was not

strongly controverted and there is only denial to the fact that she has failed to

produce the document on record, cannot be a reason to deny the entire factual

position. Accordingly, in my opinion, considering the fact that the deceased

was residing alone at Nagpur and doing additional work as a fruit vendor,

some income is required to be added in the monthly income of the deceased.

In my opinion, the income of the deceased at the time of accident will be

justified to be considered as Rs.3000/- per month. In the circumstances,

according to me, Appellants are entitled for enhancement of the claim by

considering monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month as

under :

1. Monthly notional income of the deceased Rs. 3000/-

2. Annual Income of the deceased Rs. 36,000/-

(Rs.3000/- x 12)

3. Add - 40% future prospects as per the (+) Rs. 14,400/-

Judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680.

                                                            Rs.         50,400/-
 10/11                                                           Judg.fa.738.2010.odt




4.      Less - 1/5th deduction as per the judgment of      (-) Rs.        10,080/-
        Sarla Verma V/s Delhi Transport Corporation
        (2009) 6 SCC 121.
                                                              Rs.         40,320/-
5.      Multiplier of 17 as per the Judgment of Sarla      (x) Rs.      6,85,440/-
        Verma V/s Delhi Transport Corporation (2009)
        6 SCC 121, applicable as the age of deceased
        was 26 years at the time of accident.
        (Rs.40,320/- x 17)
6.      Loss of Consortium         for   each    Claimant (+) Rs.         75,000/-
        (Rs.15,000 x 5)
7.      Loss of Estate                                    (+) Rs.         15,000/-
8.      Funeral Expenses as per the Judgment of (+) Rs.                   10,000/-
        National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi
        (2017) 16 SCC 680.
        Total compensation payable to the Claimants           Rs.       7,85,440/-

15. In the light of above, in my opinion, the amount of Rs.7,85,440/-

would be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the matter.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order.

ORDER

1. First Appeal is allowed.

2. The Judgment and Award dated 7/4/2008 passed in Claim Petition No.

546/1998 is hereby modified to the extent that Appellants are entitled

for compensation of Rs.7,85,440/- along with interest at the rate of 11/11 Judg.fa.738.2010.odt

7.5% per annum from the date of registration of the proceeding till the

date of realisation of the amount.

3. It is needless to mention that the amount which is awarded by the

Tribunal shall be deducted from the amount awarded by this Court.