[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Mrs. Suvarna Shankar Budar And Ors. on 5 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:115 28-fast-15037-2023-OJ.doc
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 15037 OF 2023
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
4th Floor, Chintamani Avenue,
Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063. ...Appellant
~ versus ~
1. Suvarna Shankar Budar,
Aged about 52 years,
Wife of the deceased
2. Prashant Shankar Budar,
Aged about 29 years,
Son of the deceased
SHEPHALI 3. Nikhil Shankar Budar,
SANJAY
MORMARE Aged about 27 years,
Digitally signed by
Son of the Deceased.
SHEPHALI
SANJAY
MORMARE
Date: 2026.01.06
10:28:45 +0530
All are residing At-Post Asurde
Nirmalwadi, Taluka Chiplun,
District - Ratnagiri,
Presently residing at 63/F/25,
1st Fanaswadi, Sitaram Poddar Marg, ...Respondents
Mumbai 400 002. (Org. Applicants)
4. M/s Sanket Transport LLP,
Office No. 1101, 11th Floor,
Mayuresh Chamber, Plot No. 60,
Sector-V, Thane, Maharashtra,
400 614 ...Respondent
A PPEARANCES
Page 1 of 5
5th January 2026
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:31:59 :::
28-fast-15037-2023-OJ.doc
For the Appellant Mrs Shalini Shankar.
For The Respondents Mr Amol Gatne, i/b Swati Metha.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 5TH JANUARY 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. The learned counsel for the Respondents/Claimants seeks
leave to file Vakalatnama within a week from today. Leave granted.
Office to accept the same.
2. By consent of both sides the Appeal is heard finally at the
stage of admission.
3. This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act
1988 takes exception to the Judgment and Award dated 30 th
November 2022, passed in MACP No. 475 of 2018, whereby the
Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 49,19,860/- along with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of registration
of the Claim Petition till realisation of the amount.
4. The Appellant/Insurer takes exception to the Judgment and
Award essentially on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in not
holding that the deceased motorcyclist has contributed in the
5th January 2026
28-fast-15037-2023-OJ.doc
occurrence of the accident. It is also contended that the Tribunal
has granted excessive compensation without considering the
evidence in respect of employment and income of the deceased.
5. Learned Counsel for the Insurer submits that though the
evidence was not led by the Insurer to prove any contributory
negligence, on the basis of police papers the Tribunal ought to
have held that the deceased has contributed to the occurrence of
the accident. On the point of quantum, it is her submission that the
Tribunal has erred in accepting the income of the deceased at the
rate of Rs. 47,133/- per month and which has resulted into grant
of excessive compensation.
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Original Claimants
supported the impugned Judgment and Award. It is his submission
that even on the basis of police papers it cannot be held that the
deceased has contributed to the accident. With regard to the
employment and income of the deceased, attention of the Court is
drawn to the evidence on record which indicates that the deceased
was serving with Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Company Limited (for short "MSEDCL") and was working as a
Senior Technician and was earning Rs.47,133/- per month. It is
5th January 2026
28-fast-15037-2023-OJ.doc
his contention that on the basis of the said evidence, the impugned
Judgment and Award is justified.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that in the accident in
question, the deceased died. It is further not in dispute that he
was riding motorcycle bearing No. MH08-M-3214, and a motor
container having registration No. MH-43-Y-7377 owned and
insured with Original Opponents, dashed to the motorcycle. In the
said accident, rider of motorcycle sustained serioius injuries and
succumbed thereto. The Insurer though taken defence of
contributory negligence, but has failed to lead any independent
evidence to substantiate the same. From the police papers also it
cannot be held that the deceased has contributed to causing of the
accident in any manner whatsoever.
8. On the point of employment and income of the deceased,
there is evidence on record to indicate that the deceased was
employed as Senior Technician with MSEDCL and was earning
Rs.47,133/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly accepted the said
evidence and by applying appropriate multiplier and adding future
prospects has calculated the amount of compensation, keeping in
mind age of deceased.
5th January 2026
28-fast-15037-2023-OJ.doc
9. Having regard to the aforestated discussion, there is no merit
in the Appeal.
10. In view of the above, I pass the following order:
ORDER
(a) The Appeal is dismissed.
(b) The Claimants are permitted to withdraw the
deposited amount along with accrued interest
thereon.
(c) The statutory amount be transmitted to the Tribunal
along with accrued interest thereon. The parties are at
liberty to withdraw it as per Rule.
(d) R & P be sent back to the Tribunal.
11. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, pending Applications, if
any, stand disposed of.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
5th January 2026
