[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Raghunath S/O Wamanrao Wankhade And ... vs Ramesh Vitthalrao Gade And Another on 17 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:670
fa.515.18-J.doc 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.515 OF 2018
1. Raghunath s/o. Wamanrao Wankhade,
Aged 41 years, Occ.: Agriculturist,
2. Nilkanth s/o. Raghunath Wankhade,
Aged 13 years, Occ.: Education,
3. Parth s/o. Raghunath Wankhade,
Aged 11 years, Occ.: Education,
Claimant Nos.2 & 3 Minor through
their Natural Guardian Father Claimant
No.1.
4. Manjulabai wd/o. Wamanrao Wankhade,
Aged 78 years, Occ.: Household,
All R/o. Jamthi Bk.Tq. Murtizapur,
Dist. Akola. ---APPELLANTS
---VERSUS---
1. Ramesh Vitthalrao Gade,
Aged 41 years, Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Lakh Rayji, Tq. Darwha,
District Yavatmal.
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
through its Manager, Rajendra Tendulwar
Plot No.66/1, Ward No.4, Gandhi Nagar,
Shivaji Chok, Digras, Tq. Digras,
Dist. Yavatmal. ----RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. A. Mohta, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. B. P. Bhatt, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fa.515.18-J.doc 2/6
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 14.01.2026.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 17.01.2026
JUDGMENT
. This is an Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short, 'M.V.Act) by the Original Claimants for enhancement of the
compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for
short, M.A.C.T.), Akola by Judgment and Award dated 31.03.2017 in
M.A.C.P. No.101/2016 thereby awarding compensation of Rs.7,95,000/-
with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization
by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
2. The Appellants being the husband, sons and mother-in-law of
deceased Savita Wankhade filed the above referred Claim Petition
contending that, the deceased succumbed to the injuries suffered in the
motor vehicular accident when she was travelling on the motorcycle with
Respondent No.1. The said motorcycle was insured with Respondent No.2 -
Insurance Company. They claimed the compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.
The evidence was led on behalf of the Claimants. No evidence was led by
the Respondents. Appreciating the evidence available on record, the
learned Tribunal passed the Judgment and Award referred above.
3. Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant and the learned
Advocate for Respondent No.2- Insurance Company. None appeared for
Respondent No.1, though served. Scrutinized the record.
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant that,
the deceased was looking after the agricultural field and also contributing
as a housewife. The deceased was giving services as a housewife to the
tune of Rs.10,000/- per month and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per year from the
agriculture. Meager compensation @ Rs.5000/- per month is awarded by
the learned Tribunal and the same be enhanced.
5. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Insurance
Company that, except 7/12 extracts, there is no evidence led by the
Claimants to prove the income of the deceased. There is no dispute that,
even after the deceased, Appellant No.1 - husband can cultivate the
agricultural land and, therefore, there is no loss of income from agriculture
and the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the monthly income of the
deceased.
6. The Appellants relied on the 7/12 extracts in support of the
contention in respect of the income of the deceased. Except this, there is no
evidence on record to show the income of the deceased. The papers
indicate that, the names of the husband and the sons of the deceased are
mutated in the Revenue Record. There is substance in the submission of
the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company that, the agricultural land
is with the Appellants and they can cultivate the same and earn the income.
The services of the deceased towards the family in the nature of household
work, cannot be ignored. The learned Reference Court considered the per
month income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-, which appears to be
reasonable and proper and in absence of the evidence to show the earning
of the deceased, the monthly income considered by the learned Tribunal do
not call for interference.
7. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellants that,
no future prospects are considered by the learned Tribunal and the same be
included in the compensation. The learned Advocate for the Insurance
Company did not dispute the aspect that, in accordance with the settled
position in law, the future prospects is to be considered. In view of the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others [(2017) 16 SCC 680], 40%
addition will have to be considered in the income of the deceased as her
age at the time of death was considered and accepted as 33 years. For the
said age, the multiplier of 16 as per the Chart given in the case of Sarla
Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another,
[(2009) 6 SCC 121] is rightly applied by the learned Tribunal. The
Appellants would be entitled for spousal, parental and filial consortium @
Rs.40,000/- each as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in
Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram &
Ors. [2019 (4) Mh.L.J. 1]. The Appellants would also be entitled for
Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses as per the
above referred Judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra).
8. In view of the above discussion, the compensation awarded by
the learned Tribunal against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally
to the Appellants is recalculated as under :
1. Rs.5000/- per month towards the monthly income Rs. 7000/-
of the deceased including 40% Addition towards per month.
future prospects.
2. Yearly Income on addition of 40% future prospects Rs. 84,000/-
it comes to -
3. 1/4th deduction towards personal and living (-)Rs. 21,000/-
expenses which comes of Rs.21000/-.
Total Income - Rs. 63,000/-
4. Annual Income of the deceased by applying Rs. 10,08,000/-
multiplier of 16. (Rs.63000/- x 16)
5. Towards consortium (40,000/- x 4) (+)Rs. 160,000/-
6. Funeral Expenses (+)Rs. 15000/-
7. Loss of Estate (+)Rs. 15000/-
Total Compensation Payable to the Claimants. Rs. 11,98,000/-
9. The above referred compensation is apportioned as follows :
i] Appellant No.1 - Husband - Rs.1,00,000/-
ii] Appellant Nos.2 and 3 - Sons - Rs.5,00,000/- each.
iii] Appellant No.4 - Mother-in-Law - Rs. 98,000/-
10. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal stands
modified accordingly.
11. Rest of the Operative Order of the learned Tribunal shall
remain the same.
12. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/01/2026 12:31:31
