[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Bharati Dilip Mawalankar And Ors. vs Sanjay Narayan Yelange And Anr. on 20 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:2784 10_FA_1068_2022.DOC
Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1068 OF 2022
1. Bharati Dilip Mawalankar
2. Yash Dilip Mawalankar
3. Jay Dilip Mawalankar
4. Balu or Balaram Sadashiv Mawalankar
5. Ranjana Balaram Mawalankar
6. Aditi Dilip Mawalankar ...Appellants
Versus
1. Sanjay Narayan Yelange
2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Respondents
Mr. T.J. Mendon, for the Appellants.
Mr. Rajesh Kanojia a/w Prachi Pawar i/by Res Juris, for the
Respondents.
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 20th JANUARY, 2026.
PC:-
1. Learned counsel for the Appellants filed compilation of
documents on record.
2. By consent of both the sides heard finally at the stage of
admission.
3. This appeal is filed by the Appellants for enhancement of
compensation in connection with judgment and award dated 15 th
July, 2021, passed in M.A.C.P. No.106 of 2016, whereby the
compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- came to be granted to claimants
with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.
Page 1 of 5
th
20 January, 2026.
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2026 20:40:22 :::
10_FA_1068_2022.DOC
4. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 18 th
April, 2016 the deceased Dilip, who was riding motorcycle bearing
No.MH-01-HA-9851 with his brother Kashinath. When they
reached to the spot of accident, offending Eeco car bearing No.MH-
02-EE-3157 dashed the motorcycle. As a result of negligent driving
of the driver of the car the accident occurred. In which Dilip
sustained injuries and succumbed thereto. It is claimed that the
deceased was aged 39 years and was earning Rs.3,01,454/- from
his business.
5. The owner of the offending vehicle failed to appear before
the Tribunal and hence the claim proceeded ex-parte against him.
The Insurer filed written statement denying all the contentions of
the claimant including age, occupation and income of the
deceased. The learned Tribunal allowed the claim. Claimants being
dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation filed this Appeal for
enhancement.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellants/original claimants
submits that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the
income tax returns of the deceased filed on 2 nd February, 2016 i.e.
prior to the occurrence of the accident and death of the deceased
on 18th April, 2016. It is his submission by referring to the
concerned document that the Tribunal ought not to have rejected
the said income tax return on the ground of mistake in the
surname of the deceased mentioned therein. It is his further
submission that there is no suggestion to the claimants witnesses
with regard to the income tax returns being not genuine or being
not of deceased. It is submitted that in such circumstances, inome
Page 2 of 5
th
20 January, 2026.
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2026 20:40:22 :::
10_FA_1068_2022.DOC
appears from the income tax returns can be considered for the
purpose of computation of compensation. He also seeks
enhancement of compensation on the ground of non-payment of
compensation under the head of consortium, loss of estate and
funeral expenses. He however fairly submits that if in case those
amounts are granted, deduction of Rs.1,20,000/- needs to be done.
7. Learned counsel for the Insurer opposed the Appeal. It is
submitted that the Tribunal committed no error in accepting the
income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.6,000/- and with future
prospects of Rs.8,000/- is considered. It is submitted that it was
obligatory on the part of the claimants to prove the income tax
returns by examining witness from the income tax department.
According to him the claimant No.1, who is the wife of the
deceased is unable to say as to what business was done by the
deceased and therefore the Tribunal has rightly discarded the said
claim of the claimants.
8. In a petition under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the
claimants are required to prove their case on preponderance of
probabilities. The claimant No.1 entered in the witness box and on
oath, stated about her husband receiving a sum of Rs.
Rs.3,01,454/- per annum out of his business. To support his
submission, reliance is placed on income tax returns for the
assessment year 2015-2016. During the cross-examination there is
no suggestion made to the claimant that income tax filed on record
is not genuine nor it belongs to the deceased. In absence of any
defence to that effect being taken, the learned Tribunal ought to
have accepted the documentary evidence in the form of income tax
Page 3 of 5
th
20 January, 2026.
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2026 20:40:22 :::
10_FA_1068_2022.DOC
return showing income of the deceased. It seems that the
difference/variance in the surname of the deceased was the reason
for not accepting the said income tax returns. It is pertinent to note
that the surname of the father of the assesee is mentioned as
Mavalankar. This clearly indicates that there was a typographical
error in mentioning the surname of the deceased as Mavlamkar.
The learned Tribunal has missed the said evidence on record. Apart
from this, merely because a wife is unable to state the exact nature
of business of the husband, does not become a ground to discard
her claim. More particularly, when the said claim is duly supported
by documentary evidence on record. In absence of challenge to the
income tax returns, this Court finds error being committed by the
Tribunal in not considering the income of the deceased at the rate
of Rs.2,37,780/- per annum. Consequently, the judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal deserves modification.
9. Insofar as the enhancement of the claim under the head of
consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, by following the
judgment in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Nanu Ram1, following amount is entitled by the claimant.
10. Needless to state that the calculation will have to be done
on the basis of future prospects as contemplated by the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi2. Claimants shall be entitled to receive
the compensation at the rate of 7% per annum.
1 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC)
2 AIR 2017 SC 5157
Page 4 of 5
th
20 January, 2026.
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2026 20:40:22 :::
10_FA_1068_2022.DOC
11. The claimant is entitled to receive the following
compensation:-
Particulars Amount
Income of deceased Rs.3,01,454/-
Future prospects 40% Rs.1,20,581/-
Personal deduction ¼ (Rs.1,05,508/-) Rs.3,16,508/-
Multiplier of 15 Rs.47,47,905/-
Consortium (Rs. 48,000/- X 5 Rs.2,40,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
Total compensation after computation Rs.50,23,905/-
Less: amount awarded by the Tribunal. Rs.12,00,000/-
Enhanced compensation Rs.38,23,905/-
12. In view of the above, following order is passed.
ORDER
(i) Appeal stands partly allowed.
(ii) Impugned Judgment and Award is modified.
(iii) The claimants shall be entitled to receive
Rs.38,23,905/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. from date of
filing Petition till realisation.
(iv) All pending applications, if any also disposed of.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
th
20 January, 2026.
