[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Tata Aig Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Dipika Jagannath Koli And Anr. on 20 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:2782 2_FA_1664_2025.DOC
Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1664 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11067 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1664 OF 2025
Tata AIG Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
1. Dipika Jagannath Koli
2. Akhilesh Pal ...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1666 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11072 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1666 OF 2025
Tata AIG Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
1. Dipika Jagannath Koli
2. Suchita Jagannath Koli
3. Siddhesh Jagannath Koli
4. Akhilesh Pal ...Respondents
Mr. Rajesh Kanojia a/w Prachi Pawar i/by Res Juris, for the
Appellant.
Ms. Rina Kundu, for the Respondents.
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 20th JANUARY, 2026.
PC:-
1. Learned counsel for the Respondents has tendered
compilation of documents. The same is taken on record.
Page 1 of 5
th
20 January, 2026.
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2026 20:40:22 :::
2_FA_1664_2025.DOC
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that First Appeal
No.1666 of 2025 and Interim Application No.11072 of 2025 be
heard along with the present Appeal. By consent of both the
parties First Appeal No.1666 of 2025 and Interim Application
No.11072 of 2025 are taken on Board.
3. Both the appeals involve similar question of fact and by
consent of both the sides heard finally at the stage of admission.
4. The learned Tribunal passed judgment and award dated 17 th
April, 2025 in M.A.C.P. No.753/2018 allowing injury claim of the
claimant and granting her compensation of Rs.20,72,250/- with
interest @8% per annum. In M.A.C.P. No.754/2018 by judgment
and award dated 17th April, 2018 death claim filed by the claimant
was allowed with compensation of Rs.20,10,040/- with interest
@8% per annum from the date of petition till realization of the
said amount.
5. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the
fact that on 12.08.2018 at about 04:00 p.m., an accident occurred
involving an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.MH-04-GN-
3317 and motor jeep bearing No.MH-05-DH-9702. The deceased
was proceeding with his wife in the auto rickshaw. In the said
accident they sustained injuries. Husband died whereas the wife
sustained serious injuries in the accident.
6. The Appellant/Insurer takes exception to the judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal essentially on the ground that the
Tribunal committed an error in accepting the income of deceased
Page 2 of 5
th
20 January, 2026.
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2026 20:40:22 :::
2_FA_1664_2025.DOC
at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month and injured earning
Rs.10,000/- per month.
7. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurer submits that there
is absolutely no evidence on record to indicate income of the
deceased as well as of the injured in both claims. It is his
submission that the Tribunal has accepted the notional income of
the deceased as well as the injured on higher side and hence the
impugned judgment and award deserves interference.
8. Learned counsel for the claimants opposed the said
submissions by drawing attention of the Court to the fact that
there is evidence to show that the deceased was doing business of
selling fish and was issued with the notice by the Corporation for
vacating the premises allotted to him. This according to her clearly
shows that the deceased as well as the injured were in the business
of selling of fish and hence the income accepted by the Tribunal is
not excessive. There is evidence on record to indicate that the
deceased was doing the business in the fish market. The said
contention of the claimants is supported by the notice issued by the
corporation calling upon deceased to vacate the said premises for
development purpose. This, therefore, indicates that there is
evidence to show that the deceased was doing business of selling
fish and obviously he would have earned substantial income. The
learned Tribunal accepted the income of the deceased at the rate of
Rs.25,000/- per month. In the facts of the case, the said acceptance
of income is not excessive in order to cause interference therein.
9. Insofar as the claim of injured is concerned, she deposes on
oath that she was selling fish by visiting the customers door to
Page 3 of 5
th
20 January, 2026.
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2026 20:40:22 :::
2_FA_1664_2025.DOC
door obviously on account of injuries/disability her earning
capacity would get affected as she won't be able to sell fish, as
done prior to the accident. Having regard to the fact that the
family was engaged in the business of selling fish, her evidence
regarding selling of fish does not deserve discardance. The notional
income of the injured at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month cannot
be considered to be on higher side.
10. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that in First
Appeal No.1666/2025 the Tribunal has not granted consortium to
any of the claimants. She seeks enhancement of compensation on
that ground by referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in the
case of Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar 1. This contention is
opposed by the learned counsel for the opponent.
11. In view of the judgment in the case of Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram2 the claimants who are wife and
children are entitled to the consortium. Hence, in view of the
judgment in case of Pappu (supra) the claimants are entitled to
receive enhancement of compensation i.e. Rs.1,44,000/- with
interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
12. As a result of our discussions, following order.
ORDER
(i) Appeals stand dismissed.
1 2020 AIR 4424 (SC).
2 AIROnline 2018 SC 1249
th
20 January, 2026.
2_FA_1664_2025.DOC
(ii) Claimants / Respondents in Appeal
No.1666/2025 shall be entitled to receive a sum of
Rs.1,44,000/- along with interest @8% per annum
over and above compensation granted by the
Tribunal.
(iii) The statutory deposit along with interest, if
any, be transferred to the Tribunal. The said amount
be adjusted towards the compensation.
(iv) All pending applications, if any, stands disposed
of.
(v) R & P be sent back to the Tribunal.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
th
20 January, 2026.
