[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Dushyant S/O Hiraman Chokhandre And 2 ... vs Prabhakar S/O Maruti Konduskar And ... on 23 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4592
1 fa560.2016 (j).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
First Appeal No.560/2016
1. Dushyant S/o Hiraman Chokhandre,
Aged about 64 years,
Occupation - Service (Now retired)
2. Sushila w/o Dushyant Chokhandre,
Aged about 59 years,
Occupation - Housewife.
3. Sanket s/o Dushyant Chokhandre,
Aged about 29 years,
Occupation - Nil.
All R/o 12, Rahate Layout, Opp. Durga
Mandir, Pratap Nagar, Nagpur-22..
All on R.A. ..Appellants/Original Claimants.
Versus
1. Prabhakar s/o Maruti Konduskar,
Aged about Major,
Occupation - Owner,
R/o A/P, Gokulshirgaon,
Tal-Karveer,
Kolhapur.
2. The Divisional Manager,
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Kolhapur Through Nagpur D.O.
Plot No.42, Pragati Colony,
Opp. To Sai Mandir, Wardha Road, Respondents/
Nagpur All on R.A. Original Opponents.
Mr. U.P. Deopujari, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. M.B.Joshi, Advocate for Respondent no.2.
..
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATED : 23.03.2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
2 fa560.2016 (j).odt
1. This is an Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short, "M.V.Act") by the Claimants for enhanced
compensation. In the Claim Petition No.222/2008, filed by the
Appellants, who are the parents and the brother of deceased Subodh, the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, (for short "Tribunal")
awarded compensation of Rs.10,45,000/- with 7.5% per annum.
2. The Claimants preferred the above referred Claim Petition
with the case that, the deceased Subodh, who had acquired the
qualification of B.Sc. (Hons), Computer Network Communication, died
in the motor vehicular accident on 2.2.2008 while he was travelling in
the four-wheeler and the bus gave dash to the said four-wheeler. The
Claimants claimed compensation of Rs.1,65,15,000/-. The Claimant no.1
examined himself as Witness and brought on record the relevant
documents. The Claim was contested by the Respondent-Insurance
Company. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal
considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- and
awarded the above referred compensation with the above rate of
interest.
3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Claimants
that, the learned Tribunal did not consider the document on record,
particularly the document (Ex.42/15) showing the weekly Salary of the
deceased while he was in London. The monthly income of the deceased
considered by the learned Tribunal was on lower side. Since the
Claimants are three in number, there should have been 1/3rd deduction
3 fa560.2016 (j).odt
towards personal expenses. The compensation is also not considered
towards future prospect, consortium and meagre compensation is
awarded towards funeral expenses. He submitted that, the Appeal be
allowed and the Claim Petition be remanded back to the learned Tribunal
for reconsideration.
4. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submits
that, the deceased came back to India after completing his education. At
the time of death, the deceased was not earning. The learned Tribunal,
by considering the education acquired by the deceased, considered the
monthly income as Rs.10,000/- which was appropriate. No evidence was
led by the Claimants in support of his contention in respect of income of
the deceased while he was abroad. The Appeal be dismissed.
5. There is no dispute in respect of the occurrence of accident,
and death of deceased, who was the son of the Appellant nos.1 and 2
and brother of Appellant no.3. There is also no dispute on the aspect
that, for higher education the deceased had gone abroad and returned to
India in 2006. The accident occurred in the year 2008. It is nowhere the
case of the Appellants as seen from the papers on record that, the
deceased was earning at the time of his death. The Exhibit No.42/15,
which is pointed by the learned Advocate for the Appellants is the copy
of the document under the title, "Private and Confidential" showing the
total amount as 88.27 in pounds, which according to the Advocate for
the Claimants, was the weekly income of the deceased while he was
taking education abroad. The same was without any pleadings. No
4 fa560.2016 (j).odt
evidence was led by the Appellants to prove the said document. In
absence of the pleadings and the evidence, the said document would be
of no assistance to the Claimants. Undisputedly, there is no evidence to
show that, the deceased was earning at the time of death.
6. The learned Tribunal, while considering the monthly
income of deceased considered the material on record in the nature of
documents showing that, in the year 2004 i.e. before leaving India for
London, the deceased was working in the CMS Computer Limited with
monthly salary of Rs.4578/-. The learned Tribunal considered the
qualification of the deceased and by observing that, he was having bright
future, considered monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. The said observation
of the learned Tribunal is appropriate and based on the material
available on record. Therefore, no fault can be found with the said
monthly income of the deceased considered by the learned Tribunal.
7. As regards the contention in respect of the future prospect,
consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, the same is to be
considered in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sarla Verma (Smt) and ors. Vs.Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.,
(2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and ors.,(2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance
Co.Ltd.Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 . There is no
dispute that, the deceased was 29 years of the age and bachelor at the
time of his death. Being the bachelor, there will be 50% deduction
towards his personal and living expenses. There will be 40% addition in
5 fa560.2016 (j).odt
his income towards the future prospects. The learned Tribunal has
appropriately adopted the multiplier of `17'. The Claimants would be
entitled Rs.40,000/- each, towards consortium and Rs.15,000/- each
towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. The calculation comes as
under:
Income Rs.10,000 per month x 12 = Rs. 1,20,000
Future prospect Rs. 48,000
Total Rs. 1,68,000
50% Deducted towards personal expenses Rs. 84,000
Total Rs 84,000
Multiplier 84,000 x 17 = Rs.14,28,000
Consortium Rs. 1,20,000
Funeral Expenses and loss of estate Rs. 30,000
Total amount = Rs. 15,78,000
8. As regards the period of interest is concerned, the accident
is of the year 2008. Needless to state that, the interest rates of the
Nationalised Bank keep on fluctuating. Appropriate interest rate of 7.5%
per annum is granted by the learned Tribunal. With this, the impugned
Award by the learned Tribunal stands modified to the extent of the total
amount of compensation. The Claimants would be entitled for total
compensation of Rs.15,78,000/- from the Respondents, jointly and
severally with the same rate of interest as granted by the learned
Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation would be apportioned
in the same ratio as done by the learned Tribunal, as seen from the
operative order. The Respondent no.2 - Insurance Company is expected
to deposit the amount of enhanced compensation before the learned
6 fa560.2016 (j).odt
Tribunal within a period of eight (8) weeks. Record and proceedings be
sent back to the learned Tribunal.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)
mukund ambulkar
Signed by: Ambulkar (MLA)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/03/2026 18:23:23
