[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Sunita Wd/O Kisanrao Watade And Ors vs Murlidhar Shivaji Shingare And Anr on 9 January, 2026

2026:BHC-AUG:667
                                                                            FA.277.2021.odt



                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                     FIRST APPEAL NO. 277 OF 2021

          1.    Sunita w/o Kisanrao Watade,              ]
                Age: 55 years, Occu: Household,          ]

          2.    Govind s/o Kisanrao Watade,              ]
                Age: 27 years, Occu: Education           ]

          3.    Santosh s/o Kisanrao Watade,             ]
                Age: 24 years, Occu: Student,            ]
          4.    Narhari Marutirao Watade,                ]
                (Deleted due to death)                   ]
          5.    Satyabhama w/o Narhari Watade,           ] Name of Appellant No.5
                All R/o. Sidharth Nagar,                 ] deleted as per Court's Order
                Kondwa (Kh.) Pune.                       ] dated 21.07.2024
                                                                           ...Appellants
                                                                     Original Claimants
                            Versus

          1.    Murlidhar s/o Shivaji Shingare,          ]
                Age: Major, Occu: Agriculture,           ]
                R/o. Keshegaon, Tq. Tuljapur,            ]
                Dist. Osmanabad                          ]
                (Owner of Jeep No.MH25/Y4141)
          2.    United India Insurance Company Ltd.      ]
                Solapur,                                 ]
                Through: The Divisional Manager,         ]
                United India Insurance Co, Ltd.,         ]
                Shivaji Chowk, Above Axis Bank,          ]
                Kings Corner Building, 2nd Floor,        ]
                Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad         ]
                Insu. Pol. No.1612013115P103132724       ]
                Validity: 19.06.2015 to 18.06.2016       ]               ...Respondents
                Insurer of Jeep No.MH25/Y4141.           ]      (Original Respondents)

                                               ***
          Mr. P. S. Chavan, Advocate for the Appellants.
          Mr. Swapnil B. Jadhav, h/f Mr. Suhas P. Shirsat, Advocate for Res. No.1.
          Mr. Amar D. Soman, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                               ***

          Shrikant Malani                                                     Page 1 of 12
                                                                       FA.277.2021.odt



                           CORAM         : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
                           RESERVED ON   : NOVEMBER 14, 2025
                           PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 09, 2026
JUDGMENT :

1. Heard, Mr. Chavan, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.

Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Soman,

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

2. 'Admit.' heard finally with the consent of the learned advocates

for the respective parties at the admission stage.

3. The original claimants, being dissatisfied with the judgment

and Award dated 30th July 2020, passed by the learned Member, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal at Osmanabad (hereinafter referred to as the

"Tribunal") in MACP No. 301 of 2015, whereby the claim petition was partly

allowed, have preferred this appeal.

4. On 06th August 2015, the deceased Kisanrao Narhari Watade,

along with his relative Dhanaji Namdeo Watade, was proceeding towards

their village Wadner on a motorcycle bearing No.MH-12/LN-5311 (for short

"Motorcycle") to visit his parents. The deceased Kisanrao was riding the said

motorcycle. At about 03:30 p.m., when they reached near Village Patas on

Pune - Solapur National Highway near K.M. Stone 68/400, one Jeep

bearing No. MH-25/Y-4141 came from behind at high speed in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle from the rear. Due to the said

impact, the deceased Kisanrao and Dhanaji fell and sustained severe

FA.277.2021.odt

injuries. They were taken to Pyramid Hospital at Daund; however, while

undergoing treatment, they succumbed to their injuries. Accordingly, Crime

No. 241 of 2015 was registered against the driver of the said Jeep at the

Police Station, Yavat, Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 279 and

304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The appellant/claimant No.1 is the widow, appellant Nos. 2 and

3 are the sons, and appellant Nos. 4 and 5 are the parents of deceased

Kisanrao, and they were all dependent upon him.

6. The deceased Kisanrao was 55 years old at the time of the

accident. He owned two goods tempos bearing Nos.MH-12/FD-3054 and

MH-12/DG-4920 were engaged in the business of transporting goods using

the said tempos, earning an annual income of Rs. 3,27,410/-. He was also

an income taxpayer. Due to the accident, the claimants suffered great

hardship. Therefore, they have filed the claim petition.

7. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the Jeep, and the said Jeep

was insured with respondent No.2 - Insurance Company. Therefore,

respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation to the claimants.

8. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared and filed their respective

written statements, thereby denying the age, occupation, and income of the

deceased. They further denied that the accident occurred due to the Jeep

Driver's rash and negligent driving of the Jeep. They also contended that the

FA.277.2021.odt

claim was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and urged that the

petition be dismissed. The respondent No. 2 also raised the ground that the

deceased didn't wear a Helmet at the time of the accident, and therefore, he

was liable for contributory negligence. Consequently, they urged the

dismissal of the claim petition.

9. After considering the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned

Tribunal has framed the issues. Pursuant to the said issues, claimant No.2 -

Govind produced and proved the relevant documents and also examined the

witness, Sadashiv Kambale. On the other hand, the respondents neither

adduced any evidence in support of their defence nor produced any

documents.

10. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal

held that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation to the claimants and partly allowed the petition. Being

dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, the original claimants have

preferred this appeal.

11. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned

counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the impugned judgment and

record. I have also gone through the written notes of arguments submitted

by the learned counsel for the appellants and the judgments relied upon by

him in support of his contention. The following points arise for

consideration:

FA.277.2021.odt

1. Whether the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation.

2. Whether any interference is required in the impugned judgment and decree.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that

the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as ₹

7,000/- per month instead of taking into account the income reflected in the

income tax returns submitted by him, and therefore, erred in determining

the compensation. He further argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in

deducting 10% towards contributory negligence on the ground that the

deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident. He

submitted that the said finding is contrary to the settled position of law and

is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

13. To buttress his submissions, he has relied on the judgment of

the Karnataka High Court in Chandrakanth v. Kamala and another, and on the

decisions of this Court in the cases of Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs.

Ishwari Thanwarmal Bajaj and Anr ., and The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs.

Jankabai Babruwan Bhawal and Ors., and urged that the appeal be allowed.

14. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 vehemently

opposed the claim on the ground that the income tax returns submitted by

the deceased were not properly filed with the Income Tax Department and,

therefore, had not been processed. He further submitted that, since the

income tax returns were not exhibited, the learned Tribunal rightly

FA.277.2021.odt

discarded them. Accordingly, the Tribunal's finding that the deceased's

income was ₹ 7,000/- per month is just and proper. However, he does not

dispute that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 10% towards

contributory negligence.

Point No.(i) :-

15. It is pertinent to note that none of the respondents has

challenged the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned

Tribunal. Thus, this fact itself shows that they have no grievance regarding

the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal; consequently, those findings

have attained finality against them.

16. While determining the first point raised by the learned counsel

for the appellants, ongoing through the record, it appears that the claimants

had filed income tax returns for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-

2014 and 2014-2015 before the Tribunal. These returns show that the

deceased had submitted them to the Income Tax Department. The Income

Tax Officer only deposed that the returns were not properly submitted and,

therefore, could not be processed. He did not depose that the income shown

in the deceased's income tax returns was incorrect or excessive; he only

deposed that the returns were not properly submitted and therefore could

not be processed. However, the learned Tribunal gave undue importance to

his testimony and discarded the income tax returns, which had been filed by

the deceased much before the occurrence of the accident.

FA.277.2021.odt

17. On perusal of the income tax returns, it clearly reveals that the

deceased filed the income tax return for the assessment year 2012-2013

with the Income Tax Department on 19 th July 2012, which bears the stamp

of the said office. In return, he mentioned his gross income for the said year

as ₹ 2,67,980/-. The second income tax return for the assessment year

2013-2014 was filed on 29th July 2013, in which his gross income was

shown as ₹ 2,97,720. The third income tax return for the assessment year

2014-2015 was filed on 17th July 2014, in which his gross income was

shown as ₹ 3,27,410/-. Thus, the third return was filed well before the

accident occurred.

18. Moreover, it was not the contention of the Income Tax Officer

that the income shown in the said income tax return was incorrect; he only

deposed that the deceased had not properly submitted the returns and

therefore, the same could not be processed. In such circumstances, it was

incumbent on the Income Tax Officer to inform the deceased accordingly or

seek verification regarding the non-submission of the said returns properly.

On that count alone, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is liable to

be set aside.

19. Apart from that, it is worth noting that PW-1 Govind, in his

chief examination, categorically deposed about the three income tax returns

and stated that the income of the deceased for the assessment year 2014-15

was ₹ 3,27,410/-. However, during his cross-examination, the respondents

FA.277.2021.odt

neither denied nor challenged his testimony on this point. Therefore, there

is no reason to disbelieve his testimony. Since the said testimony remains

unchallenged, I have no hesitation in holding that the deceased was earning ₹

3,27,410/- per annum.

20. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order as well as the

record it appears that the learned Tribunal, while determining the income of

the deceased, erred in discarding the material evidence i.e. income tax

returns submitted by the deceased for the assessment years 2012-2013,

2013-2014 and 2014-2015 with the Income Tax Department, much before

occurrence of the accident. At the time of filing these returns, the deceased

could not have anticipated that he would suffer the accident, but the returns

were submitted in due course. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased

filed the said income tax returns with the intention of claiming higher

compensation.

21. Moreover, the learned Tribunal erred in discarding the income

tax returns solely on the ground that they were not appropriately submitted.

Improper submission of the returns does not mean that the income shown

therein was incorrect or inappropriate. In fact, it was the duty of the

concerned tax consultant to file the returns correctly; therefore, it was not

proper on the part of the Tribunal to discard those income tax returns,

especially when PW-1 had categorically deposed about them, and his

testimony remained unchallenged. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the

FA.277.2021.odt

learned Tribunal appears to be contrary to the evidence on record. The

learned Tribunal further erred in assessing a notional income of the

deceased, despite the claimants having established that the deceased was

engaged in the business of transportation, owned two tempos, and had filed

income tax returns well before the date of the accident. Therefore, the said

finding cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law. Thus, in view of the

above facts and the mandate laid down in Chandrakanth (supra), Reliance

General Insurance Co., Ltd. (supra), I have no hesitation in holding that the

deceased had an income of ₹ 3,27,410/- per annum, after deducting the

income tax of ₹ 2,000 and professional tax of ₹ 2,500/-. The net income of

the deceased would come to ₹ 3,22,910/- per annum.

22. The second point relates to deduction of 10% amount towards

contributory negligence on the ground that the deceased had not worn the

helmet. The learned counsel for the appellant, to substantiate his

contention, relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of The New

India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra) and drew my attention to paragraph

No.10 of the said judgment, submitting that, in view of the observations

made by this Court, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is

incorrect. The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the

observations made in the above judgment. It is pertinent to note that non-

wearing of the helmet was not the cause of the accident. Therefore, in my

view, it cannot be said that, due to non-wearing of the helmet, the deceased

FA.277.2021.odt

was also liable for the occurrence of the accident. At most, failing to wear a

helmet or take other safety measures may result in an offence under the

Motor Vehicle Act, but it cannot be considered as a cause of the accident.

Therefore, in my view, the learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 10% of

the amount on the ground of contributory negligence for not wearing a

helmet, and the said finding is liable to be set aside.

23. It further appears that during the pendency of the claim

petition, original claimant No.4 - Narhari had died, and during the

pendency of the appeal, original claimant No.5 - Satyabhama had also died.

Claimant No. 1 is the widow, and claimants Nos. 2 and 3 are the major sons

of the deceased. Therefore, in my view, claimant No. 1 - Sunita is entitled

to 60% of the compensation amount, and appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are

entitled to 20% each of the compensation amount.

24. Thus, considering the above discussion, it appears that at the

time of the accident, the deceased was 55 years old, and therefore, a

multiplier of 11 would apply. There were five dependents; accordingly, 1/4 th

of the amount is required to be deducted for personal expenses. Moreover,

as the deceased was aged between 51 and 55 years, the claimants are

entitled to 10% additional compensation under the head of future prospects,

as per the law laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and

Ors. and Sarla Varma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation. Consequently, the

claimants are entitled to compensation as under, and to that extent, the

FA.277.2021.odt

impugned judgment and decree are liable to be modified accordingly.

                   Particulars                 Amount in ₹
Income 3,22,910 per annum                  = 3,22,910
Future Prospects 10%                       + 32,291
Total                                      = 3,55,201
Less ¼                                      - 88,880
                                              (3,55,201-88,800=2,26,401)
Loss of Future income                      = 24,90,411
(2,26,401 x 11 multiplier)

Loss of consortium (amount of + 2,42,000 (48,400 x 5) ₹40,000/- be increased by every 3 years by 10% from 2017 till its realisation) Loss of estate (amount of ₹ 15,000/- + 18,150 be increased by every 3 years by 10% from 2017 till its realisation) Funeral Expenses (amount of + 18,150 ₹15,000/- will be increased by every 3 years by 10% from 2017 till its realisation) Total 27,68,711

25. To sum up the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the

appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation, and to that extent,

interference in the impugned judgment and Award is warranted.

Accordingly, I answer point Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative.

26. As a consequence, the impugned judgment and order dated 30 th

July 2020, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

at Osmanabad in MACP No. 301 of 2015, is required to be modified to the

extent of quantum.

FA.277.2021.odt

27. The respondents No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to

pay the sum of ₹ 27,68,711/- to the appellants, along with the interest @ 7%

p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation, instead of