[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Smt. Sonali Wd/O Sudhish Pal, And ... vs Dasrath S/O Narayan Rewatkar And Others on 20 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:917
1 FA 171-2015.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 171 OF 2015
1) Smt. Sonali wd/o. Sudhish Pal,
Aged 34 years.
2) Mst. Nirjay s/o. Sudhish Pal,
Aged 7 years, Appellant no. 2 Minor
Through M/G Appellant No. 1
Both R/o. C/o. Nandlal Mahavir
Wanikar, Lalganj, Khairipura, Nagpur ... Appellants
.. Versus ..
1) Dasrath s/o. Narayan Rewatkar,
Aged Major, Waghdhara
(New Gumgaon), Tah. Hingna,
District Nagpur.
2) Branch Manager, Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Shankar Nagar to Bajaj Nagar road,
Nagpur
3) Jagannath s/o. Pancham Pal,
Aged 62 years, Occ. Retired,
4) Smt. Usha w/o. Jagannath Pal,
Aged 53 years, Occ. Household.
Both R/o. 85, Plot Area, Gawande
Layout, Near Narendra Nagar, Nagpur ...Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Asghar Hussain, Advocate for appellants.
Shri H.N.Verma, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 FA 171-2015.odt
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 13/01/2026
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 20/01/2026
JUDGMENT
This is an Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'M.V. Act') by the original
claimants for enhancement in compensation awarded by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (for short,
'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 583/2009 awarding the
compensation of Rs. 7,60,040/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum
against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally.
2. The Appellant No. 1 is the widow, Appellant No. 2 is
the son and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are parents of deceased
Sudhish. The Appellants and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed the
above Claim Petition contending that, the deceased Sudhish met
with a Motor Vehicular Accident on 04/06/2009 when he was
travelling on the Motor Cycle from Butibori to Nagpur at about
14.45 hours. The accident took place due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending Tractor. The deceased succumbed to the
injuries in the hospital on 07/06/2009. The Tractor was insured
3 FA 171-2015.odt
with the respondent no. 2 Insurance Company. The deceased was
29 years old at the time of death and earning Rs. 99,510/- per
year.
3. The Claim Petition was contested by Respondent no.
1 - owner of the Tractor and Respondent No. 2 - Insurance
Company of the Tractor. After filing their respective Written
Statement below Exh. 17 and 16, the learned Tribunal framed the
issues. The claimants led the evidence. No evidence was led by
the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The learned Tribunal passed the
above referred judgment and award.
4. Heard learned Advocate for the Appellants and
learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 - Insurance Company.
None for Respondent No. 1. Perused the evidence available on
record.
5. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the
Appellants that, though the Appellants placed on record the
Income Tax return filed by the deceased prior to death, the
learned Tribunal considered half of the Income shown in the
Income Tax return as the Appellant No. 1 in her evidence
deposed that, the deceased was in business. The Income Tax
4 FA 171-2015.odt
return was in the individual name of the deceased and therefore,
the same should have been accepted by the learned Tribunal.
6. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the
Insurance Company that, the Income Tax return placed on record
by the Appellants was of the year 2006-07 and accidental death
occurred in June, 2009 and there was no other income proof.
There was no Income Tax return for the preceding year prior to
the death. As the income on the date of death is to be considered
and in absence of any proof in that regard, no interference was
called for in determination of Income of the deceased by the
learned Tribunal.
7. According to the Appellants, the deceased was doing
business of trading under the name and style as "M/s. N P Sales
Corporation, Nagpur" and for the financial year 2006-07, his
income was Rs. 99,510/- per year. In the cross-examination of
the Appellant No. 1, the said aspect is reiterated. It has come in
the evidence of the Appellant No. 1 that, it was the partnership
business, she was unaware of the details of the said business.
She admitted that, she had not filed Income Tax return of the
Corporation and she was not aware about the Income of
5 FA 171-2015.odt
Corporation. Though in her cross-examination, it has come that,
the Income Tax return filed on record was of "M/s. M. P. Sales
Corporation" undisputedly the Income Tax return below Exh. 36
is filed in the individual capacity of the deceased. The said
Income Tax return is proved through the witness no. 2 Jaideo
Wakodikar who was working as an Inspector in the Income Tax
Department for more than 35 years.
8. The evidence of P.W. 2 shows that, he appeared
pursuance to the summons issued by the learned Tribunal and he
was authorized to give the evidence. He had brought the return
record of the deceased. In his cross-examination, it has come
that, the said Income Tax return was for the Financial Year 2006-
07 and Assessment Year 2007-08 and it was the only return
submitted to the Income Tax Department and the profession of
the deceased was shown as Commission Agent. He was unaware
about the business of deceased. It has come in his cross-
examination that, the income of deceased was below taxable
limit and there was no necessity to file such return by him.
9. Undisputedly, the Appellants have proved the
Income Tax return filed below Exh. 36 by examining the witness.
6 FA 171-2015.odt
The said Income Tax return is filed on 22/12/2008, which shows
that, the same was submitted by the deceased six months prior to
his death. It would be highly unimaginable that the deceased
knew about the fate that he was going to meet and therefore, with
some motive, he filed the said Income Tax return. Only because,
the Appellant No. 1 deposed that, the deceased was in partnership
business, his income Tax return below Exh. 36 cannot be ignored
as it was filed prior to the death of deceased and by the deceased
himself. The said Income Tax return has been accepted by the
Competent Department i.e. Income Tax Department.
Considering the short gap of six months between the death of
deceased and filing of the said Income Tax return, the same can
conveniently be accepted as the yearly income of the deceased.
10. The learned Tribunal misdirected itself in deducting
the income from the income shown in Income Tax return by
considering the said income from the partnership business. The
said findings cannot be sustained in view of clear evidence that,
the said Income Tax return was filed in the individual capacity by
the deceased. With the evidence as discussed above and in view
of the above discussion, the Appellant proved income of the
deceased as Rs. 99,510/- per annum.
7 FA 171-2015.odt
11. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the
Appellants that, the learned Tribunal erred in adding only 30%
income towards the future prospects and since the deceased was
below the age of 40 years and self employed, the addition should
have been 50%. The learned Advocate for the Insurance
Company does not dispute the parameters led by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited
V/s. Pranay Sethi and ors. reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680.
12. The age of deceased at the time of death is
considered and accepted by the learned Tribunal below 40 years.
As per the said judgment in Pranay Sethi and ors. (supra), as the
deceased was self-employed and below age of 40 years, 40%
addition is to be considered towards the future prospects.
Therefore, 40% addition in the income of deceased will have to
be included in the amount of compensation.
13. The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted
that the other consequential benefits as per the above referred
judgment in Pranay Sethi and ors. (supra), and the subsequent
judgment in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Nanu
Ram and ors. reported in 2019 (4) Mh.L.J.1 be awarded. The
8 FA 171-2015.odt
learned counsel for the Insurance Company does not dispute the
legal position as enumerated in the said judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court.
14. In view of the above referred judgment, there should
be 1/4th deduction from the income of the deceased towards
personal and living expenses. There is no dispute in respect of
multiplier applied by learned Tribunal as 17. The amount of
Rs. 1,60,000/- towards the spousal, parental and Filial
Consortium @ Rs. 40,000/- each will have to be included in the
amount of compensation as per the judgment in Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra).
15. In the light of the above discussion, the
compensation as computed is as under:-
1. Annual income of the deceased Rs. 99,510.00
2. Add - 40% towards future prospects. (+) Rs. 39,804.00
Rs. 1,39,314.00
3. Less -1/4th deduction towards living and funeral (-) Rs. 34,829.00
expenses.
Rs. 1,04,485.00
4. Multiplier of 17 (Rs. 1,04,485 X 17). (x) Rs. 17,76,245.00
5. Add : Loss of Consortium : (+) Rs. 1,60,000.00
6. Add : Loss of Estate (+) Rs. 15,000/-
7. Add : Funeral Expenses (+) Rs. 15,000/-
8. Total compensation payable to the claimants Rs. 19,66,245.00
9 FA 171-2015.odt
16. In view of the above, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to
jointly and severally to pay to the Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, an amount of Rs. 19,66,245/- with the
same rate of interest as granted by the learned Tribunal. Since
there are four (4) claimants, the above referred amount of
compensation be apportioned as:-
Rs. 10,00,000/- to the Appellant No. 1 - widow,
Rs. 6,00,000/- to the Appellant No. 2 - son, Rs. 1,50,000/- to the
Respondent No. 3 - father and Rs. 1,66,245/- to the Respondent
No. 4 - mother. The share of Appellant No. 2, being minor be
kept in the Fixed Deposit initially for two (2) years and
thereafter, renew the same from time to time till he attains
majority.
17. In view of above, the Appeal stands disposed of.
18. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
19. R & P be sent back to the learned Tribunal.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]
B.T.K.
Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/01/2026 20:41:14
