[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The Divisional Manager, Reliance ... vs Taslim Kadar Bhadarka And Ors. on 6 January, 2026
16-FA-726-2022.DOC
Rekha Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 726 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11060 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10350 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 726 OF 2022
The Divisional Manager, ...Appellant
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Versus
Taslim Kadar Bhadarka and Ors. ...Respondents
Ms. Shalini Shankar, for the Appellant.
Mr. T. J. Mendon, for the Respondents.
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 6th JANUARY 2026
PC:-
1. By consent of both the sides, heard finally at the stage of
Admission.
2. The insurer takes exception to the Judgment and Award
dated 14th December, 2021, passed in MACP No. 20 of 2017,
whereby in a death claim, the compensation of Rs.89,72,200/-
came to be awarded with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of Claim Petition till realization of the amount.
REKHA
PRAKASH
PATIL
Digitally signed by
REKHA PRAKASH Page 1 of 4
PATIL
th
Date: 2026.01.07
18:19:00 +0530
6 January 2026
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:41:10 :::
16-FA-726-2022.DOC
3. There is no dispute about the fact that on 22 nd March, 2017
an accident occurred involving motorcycle bearing registration No.
DN-09-N-8829 and motor truck bearing registration No. GJ-23-V-
0027. The deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle and when
he reached to the spot of accident, the offending truck gave dash
to the motorcycle. He sustained injuries therein and succumbed
thereto. An offence came to be registered against the driver of the
offending truck so also charge-sheet came to be filed against him.
The claimants contended that the deceased was 28 years of age at
the time of accident and was earning Rs.60,000/- per month from
his business as a Civil Works Contractor through proprietorship
firm of M/s. Hamvi Constructions.
4. The Opponent Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., the Driver and Owner of
the offending truck failed to appear before the Tribunal and the
Claim proceeded ex-parte against them. The insurer filed Written
Statement at Exh. 15 denying the contentions of the claimant. It
is however, not in dispute that the offending vehicle was duly
insured with the insurer at the relevant time. The insurer alleged
contributory negligence of the deceased in occurrence of the
accident.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that the
Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the circumstances
appearing from record, which indicate contributory negligence on
the part of the deceased in causing of the accident. She further
argued that the Tribunal has erred in granting compensation on
higher side. It is her submission that even if the case of the
Page 2 of 4
th
6 January 2026
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:41:10 :::
16-FA-726-2022.DOC
claimants is accepted that the claimant was in the business of civil
construction, after his death the business would continue and,
therefore, compensation granted is exorbitant.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent/original claimants
supported impugned Judgment and Award.
7. There is no dispute about the fact with regard to the
involvement of the offending vehicle in the occurrence of the
accident. Further, there is no challenge with regard to the fact
that offence is registered against the driver of the offending
vehicle so also filing of charge-sheet against him. There is
nothing on record to indicate that the driver of the said vehicle
had challenged the said charge-sheet at any point of time. The
Claimants have succeeded to prove involvement of offending
vehicle and negligence on the part of driver of the said vehicle in
causing of accident. The insurer has failed to lead any evidence in
order to prove the contention with regard to the contributory
negligence on the part of deceased in occurrence of the accident.
8. On the point of quantum, the record indicates that the
claimants have proved the income of the deceased by placing on
record Income Tax Return for a period from 2014 to 2017. On the
basis of the Income Tax Return the Tribunal has arrived at
conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs.41,000/- per month.
9. Having regard to the said evidence and also in view of the
fact that the calculation of the compensation has been done by
keeping in mind the age of the deceased by applying appropriate
Page 3 of 4
th
6 January 2026
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:41:10 :::
16-FA-726-2022.DOC
multiplier, there would be no justification to cause interference
therein.
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.
11. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, pending Applications, if
any, stand disposed of.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
th
6 January 2026
