[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Suresh Ramchand Sawlani And Ors. on 6 May, 2026
Author: R. I. Chagla
Bench: R. I. Chagla
2026:BHC-AS:21592-DB
1 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1283 OF 2003
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
A limited Company incorporated and
Registered under the General Insurance
Corporation Act having its Head Office
At New Delhi and Bombay Regional
Office at Oriental House, Regional
Office No. 2, 7th Floor, J. Tata Road,
Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 020. ...Appellant
Versus
1. Suresh Ramchand Sawlani
2. Ms. Puja Suresh Sawlani
3. Avinash Suresh Sawlani
all of them Residing at P.O. Box 856, Dubai.
4. Mrs. Jennifer Valerian D'Mello,
an Indian Inhabitant residing at 21,
Hill Niketan, 6th floor, near Mount Mary's Church,
Hill Road, Bombay - 400 050.
(owner of Ambassador car No. MH-02-8639). ...Respondents
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO. 5421 OF 2004
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 245 OF 2021
-----------------
Mr. Devendranath S. Joshi (Thr. VC) a/w Mr. Pradyumna Thakurdesai for
the Appellant.
Ms. Sunanda Kumbhat a/w K. N. Tavakulli i/b. Ms. Gauri Chhabria for
Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
-----------------
CORAM : R. I. CHAGLA AND
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
Mayur 1/36
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:43 :::
2 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
RESERVED ON : 16 MARCH 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 6 MAY 2026
JUDGMENT (Per Advait M. Sethna, J.) :
-
Prologue :-
This is yet another unfortunate case arising out of a Motor Accident,
which took lives of two women on the fateful day of 3 July 1994. It is
pursuant to this force majure event that the Respondents have invoked their
rights under the policy with the Appellant Insurance Company, by claiming
the compensation which according to them is fair and just, though, no
monetary amount can make up for the human lives lost in the tragedy.
1. This Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Mumbai ("MACT" for short) in M.A.C.T.
Application No.4124 of 1994 dated 23 June 2003 (the "Impugned
Judgment" for short). After hearing the parties at length, the claim Petition
of the Respondents was allowed and the Appellant was directed to pay
compensation of Rs.5,52,15,000/- to the Respondents, along with loss of
estate to the extent of Rs.2,500/- inclusive of No Fault Liability amount
having so received. The Appellant was directed to deposit the said amount
along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the award until the payment
and/or realization of the said amount of compensation. The Respondents
have also filed cross-objections in these proceedings for enhancement of the
compensation awarded vide the Impugned Judgment.
3 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
2. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the Registrar (Judicial -
II) of this Court vide order dated 18 August 2026 noted that, as no steps
were taken within the prescribed limitation period to bring the legal
representatives of Respondent No. 5 on record, the Appeal stood abated
against Respondent No. 5. As far as Respondent No. 4 is concerned, four
weeks' time was granted to take steps against the unserved Respondent No.
4, failing which the Appeal would stand dismissed against Respondent No.
4. Accordingly, in the present proceedings, we confine ourselves to the
eligible Respondents, as far as the present decision is concerned.
Factual Matrix :-
3. The relevant facts for the purposes of adjudication of these
proceedings are summarized below:-
(I) It was on 8 May 1954 that Mrs. Kavita Sawlani (now deceased)
was born. She went on to accredit and hold a Bachelor of Arts
Degree. She was married to Respondent No.1 in the year 1975.
Between the years 1975 to 1984 the said Mrs. Kavita Sawlani
(now deceased) was helping Respondent No.1 in his
office/administrative work.
(II) The Respondent No.1 i.e. husband of the deceased Mrs. Kavita
Sawlani was a Partner in M/s. Royal Traders, a firm engaged in
importing and selling textile. The annual earning of
Respondent No.1 from the said business is stated to be 2
4 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
Million Dirhams. Mrs. Sawlani (now deceased) was working
with Respondent No.1 i.e. her husband in the said business and
her contribution is stated to be about 50% of the earning of the
Respondent No.1, in terms of the certificate from M/s. Royal
Traders which is placed on record.
(III) Since 1991, Mrs. Kavita Sawlani (now deceased) was working
as Project Consultant with Abdulla Abdul Karim Al Arif. Mrs.
Kavita Sawlani received remuneration of 2.9 Million Dirhams
for the period of 12 months from the year 1993, from her
erstwhile employer. The Respondents have relied on the
income certificate and the evidence of Respondent No.1 as well
as of the employer of Mrs. Kavita Sawlani (now deceased).
(IV) Mrs. Kavita Sawlani (now deceased) received a remuneration
of 1 Million Dirhams for the services provided by her for the 4
- 5 months, of her engagement/work with the said employer in
the year 1994 itself. The Respondents have relied on the
income certificate and evidence of Respondent No.1 as well as
that of the erstwhile employer of the deceased, Mrs. Kavita
Sawlani.
(V) Respondent No.1 along with his wife Mrs. Kavita Sawlani (now
deceased), minor daughter - Pooja, sister-in-law Kanchan
Govind Melwani and niece Rinku Govind Melwani were
5 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
traveling from Mumbai to Shirdi in motor Vehicle no. MH-02-
8639 owned by Respondent No.4 i.e. owner of the said vehicle.
It was on 3 July 1994 that the said vehicle met with a headlong
accident near Village Wadapa, near Bhiwandi by Lorry no. MP-
23-B-2766 belonging to Respondent No.5 which was traveling
in the opposite direction. In this behalf, Respondents would
place reliance on the FIR, Inquest panchanama, Spot
panchanama as well as evidence of Respondent No.1.
Admittedly, both the colliding vehicles had valid and subsisting
insurance with the Appellant as on the date of the accident.
(VI) By virtue of the said accident which took place on 3 July 1994
Mrs. Kavita Sawlani (now deceased) along with her sister Mrs.
Kanchan Melwani succumbed to injuries. Respondent No.1
suffered personal injuries. Mrs. Kavita Sawlani is survived by
her husband i.e. Respondent No.1 and her two children i.e.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
(VII) At the time of her death Mrs. Kavita Sawlani was aged 40
years, Respondent No.1 was 45 years, Respondent No.2 was 16
years and Respondent No.3 was 15 years respectively.
4. On 23 December 1994, a Claim Application was filed by Respondent
Nos.1, 2 and 3 with the MACT, Mumbai which duly set out the details of the
amount of compensation claimed by the Respondents.
6 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
5. The said claim application came to be adjudicated resulting in the
impugned judgment of MACT dated 23 June 2003, computing
compensation at Rs.5,52,15,000/- along with interest at 9% p.a. to be paid
by the Appellant to the Respondent from the date of passing of the said
Impugned Judgment. It is in this factual background that the present
Appeal is preferred before this Court.
Rival Contentions :-
Submission of the Appellant :-
6. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, has urged that
the Impugned Judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside, inasmuch as
the MACT has failed to consider the factual and legal position in the case,
including non-appreciation of the evidence before it, leading to an
erroneous and illegal judgment.
7. Mr. Joshi has, firstly, submitted that the moot question to be
examined is whether the MACT properly appreciated the evidence, both
oral and documentary, before holding that the income of the deceased, Mrs.
Kavita Sawlani (now deceased), was 1 Million Dirhams, equivalent to Rs.
70 lakhs per annum.
8. In the above context, Mr. Joshi would submit that in the claim
petition filed before the MACT, it was stated that the deceased, Mrs. Kavita
Sawlani, was employed with M/s. Royal Trader, Dubai, and had an annual
income of Rs. 1 Million Dirhams. The husband of the deceased, i.e.,
7 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
Respondent No. 1, claimed in his evidence that his deceased wife assisted
him in his construction business, whereas one Mr. Abdulla, the erstwhile
employer of Mrs. Sawlani, stated that the deceased was associated with him
through Mr. Sawlani, i.e. Respondent No. 1 as part of a team for interior
designing.
9. In view thereof, there are three different versions on record regarding
the vocation of the deceased. Ultimately, the income of the deceased was
claimed to have been received from her employer, Mr. Abdulla. However,
the income of the deceased has not been substantiated by proper evidence.
The documents produced on record by the Respondents are seriously
questionable and appear to have been fabricated in order to inflate the
income of the deceased, Mrs. Kavita Sawlani. Except for the bald oral
statements of Respondent No. 1 and the erstwhile employer of the
deceased, Mrs. Kavita Sawlani, there is nothing on record to establish her
earnings. They are not supported by sufficient documentary evidence.
10. Mr. Joshi would submit that the Respondent No. 1, in his statement,
claims that the deceased was an Arts Graduate who was helping him in his
business activities by gathering market information, choosing the right
fixtures and furniture, and suggesting building designs. She was allegedly
paid for such work by her erstwhile employer, Abdulla, and earned an
income of approximately 2.9 Million Dirhams (Rs. 2.5 crore) in 1993, and
about 1 Million Dirhams (Rs. 90 lakhs) in May 1994.
8 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
11. He referred to a certificate issued by the erstwhile employer, Abdulla,
stating that the deceased was earning, on average, about 1.5 to 2 Million
Dirhams per year (approximately Rs. 1.5 crore) which was produced in
evidence. However, in cross-examination, as pointed out by Mr. Joshi,
Respondent No. 1 admitted that she had not obtained any Degree or
Diploma in interior designing and did not hold any bank account.
12. Pertinently, the office records of Respondent No. 1 do not show that
she was working with him. Respondent No. 1 denied the suggestion that he
had not suffered any monetary loss on account of the death of his wife, Mrs.
Kavita Sawlani.
13. Mr. Joshi then referred to the statement of Abdulla (C.W.) to submit
that the deceased was associated with them as an interior designer on their
project, as her husband was working with them. Before engaging her into
services, the employer had seen some photographs of the work done by the
deceased in the USA. He further stated that Abdulla engaged her services by
entering into an MoU through Respondent No. 1, acting as the General
Power of Attorney holder, and relied on a photocopy of the Power of
Attorney.
14. Mr. Joshi would contend that the photocopy of General Power of
Attorney produced was an afterthought and was introduced to fill the
lacuna in the testimony of the Respondent No. 1, i.e. the husband of the
deceased, Mrs. Kavita Sawlani. The General Power of Attorney was filed
9 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
through Abdulla in order to create MoUs to show that the deceased was
working on Abdulla's project in association with Respondent No. 1, i.e. the
husband of the deceased.
15. Mr. Joshi would submit that marking the said document as an exhibit
was objected to by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company on the ground that it was not the original Power of Attorney
issued in favour of the Respondent No. 1 and that it did not come from the
proper source. However, the Local Commissioner appointed by the MACT to
record the statement of the witness in Dubai marked them as evidence,
clearly stating that it was subject to the objection.
16. According to Mr. Joshi, upon drawing the attention of the said
witness to the MoUs dated 15 November 1992, 11 June 1992, and 2
February 1992, the witness specifically stated that all the documents were
executed and signed by Mr. Suresh Sawlani, i.e. Respondent No. 1 on behalf
of the deceased. The exhibition of the said documents was also objected by
the learned counsel for the Appellant. However, the Local Commissioner
marked them as evidence, subject to the objection of the Appellant.
17. Mr. Joshi submitted that the said witness, i.e. erstwhile employer of
the deceased, admitted that he had no knowledge of the qualifications of
the deceased, Mrs. Kavita Sawlani and that, after seeing photographs of the
work she had performed in the USA, he formed the impression that she
would be able to do the work. In response to the questions raised by
10 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
counsel for the insurance company, it was suggested that the Power of
Attorney did not grant the husband the authority to sign on her behalf for
the type of work covered by the MoUs. According to Mr. Joshi, Clause 2 of
the Power of Attorney grants him the right to sign the said MoUs on behalf
of his deceased wife.
18. Pertinently, Mr. Joshi submits that employer of the deceased i.e.
Abdulla never issued any cheques in the name of the deceased and that
there is no mention in the Power of Attorney that cheques were to be issued
in the name of the Respondent No. 1, i.e. the husband of the deceased. The
suggestion that the Power of Attorney was executed after the death of the
deceased is false, and the said Abdulla has also denied that the salary
certificate was given to the Respondent No. 1 to assist him in the
proceedings.
19. Mr. Joshi contends that the erstwhile employer has not produced the
alleged photographs of the work purportedly done by the Respondent No.
1, on the basis of which he claims to have employed her. In view thereof,
there appears to be no doubt that the deceased, Mrs. Kavita Sawlani was
never employed or engaged for any work by the erstwhile employer.
Moreover, the qualifications of the deceased, being that of a Bachelor of
Arts, do not entitle her to work as an interior designer in the absence of any
relevant qualification to that effect. The only inference that can therefore be
drawn is that the deceased, Mrs. Kavita Sawlani was a housewife at the
11 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
time of the accidental death and did not have any source of income.
20. According to Mr. Joshi, upon perusal of the evidence of Abdulla, the
erstwhile employer of the deceased, Mrs. Kavita Sawlani, the income
mentioned in the salary certificate is not substantiated by any other
document such as payment vouchers, acknowledgments, or even cheques.
The said witness admitted in cross-examination that he never issued any
cheques in the name of the deceased.
21. Mr. Joshi would contend that, admittedly, M/s. Royal Traders, Dubai
has no connection with Abdulla, who subsequently happened to be the
erstwhile employer of the deceased. Contrary to the evidence on record and
the pleadings, Respondent No. 1 has attempted to present a case that is
inconsistent with the record and the pleadings.
22. Further, there is no MoU or agreement signed with the
builder/developer to demonstrate that the deceased had an income
exceeding 1 Million Dirhams, as alleged. There is no separate bank account
in her name, as also stated by Respondent No. 1, i.e. her husband, in his
evidence. The bank statement on record reveals a joint account held by the
deceased, Mrs. Sawlani, and her husband, i.e. Respondent No. 1.
23. Mr. Joshi would place reliance on the evidence of Mr. Abdulla to the
effect that, during cross-examination, he admitted that he could not identify
the payments made to the deceased, Mrs. Sawlani, in connection with her
12 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
alleged work. The payments were made in the name of her husband, who
had been authorized under the said Power of Attorney to accept such
payments. Further, the said bank statements do not show the nature of the
receipts or the recipient of the said amounts.
24. Mr. Joshi has submitted that the marking of the said MoU as Exhibit-
8 was objected to by the counsel for the insurance company. However, such
objection was not decided by the MACT. If at all the MoU between Abdulla
and the Respondent No. 1 existed, the same should have been produced by
the Respondent No. 1 in his evidence. If the Respondent No. 1 produced the
salary certificate, nothing prevented him from producing the said MoU
25. Mr. Joshi would submit that admittedly, Mr. Abdulla has not disputed
that no cheque was issued in the name of the deceased. In any event, the
MoU does not prove the payments and, in fact, pertains to the year 1992.
Furthermore, the joint bank account does not reflect any payments made to
her by the erstwhile employer or by Abdulla or by any other
builder/developer. No documentary evidence has been produced to
establish that the deceased was assisting her husband, Respondent No. 1, in
the construction business.
26. Mr. Joshi submitted that a complete reading of the
statement/evidence of Abdulla would reveal that his company had
challenged the vocation and income of the deceased, Mrs. Sawlani, at every
13 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
stage, and that the said witness could not produce a single document with
regard to the payments allegedly made to the deceased, Mrs. Sawlani.
27. Mr. Joshi further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Chanderi Devi and Anr. v. Jaspal Singh and Ors .1 According to him, in the
absence of proof of the vocation or income of the deceased, Mrs. Sawlani,
she, being a housewife, could only be assigned a notional income of Rs.
3,000/- per month. Therefore, the quantification of compensation ought to
be based on that amount. Similarly, the rate of interest granted by the
MACT at 9% per annum should instead have been 7.5% per annum from
the date of the judgment of the MACT, considering the prevailing banking
trends.
28. Mr. Joshi would then contend that if this Court comes to the
conclusion that the vocation and income of the deceased and Mrs. Sawlani
have been proved, the compensation payable is to be reworked in terms of
the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 2, as followed by the Supreme
Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur & Ors.3
29. Mr. Joshi would submit that the Respondents have claimed future
prospects, which cannot be granted in light of the decision in Pranay Sethi
(supra). He further contends that, considering the prevailing situation in
1 (2015) 11 SCC 703
2 (2017) 16 SCC 680
3 (2021) 11 SCC 780
14 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
India, the same cannot be applied to a person settled outside India. In any
event, the same would be computed at the rate of 25%, since the deceased,
Mrs. Sawlani, was above 40 years of age at the time of her accidental death.
30. According to Mr. Joshi, the multiplier applied by the MACT is 12,
whereas it is required to be 14 as per the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra).
Mr. Joshi contends that the same principle as above, would apply for this
purpose as well.
31. According to Mr. Joshi, the deduction towards personal expenses is
taken as 1/3rd amount, however, it should be 50% in view of the fact that
the standard of living is far more expensive compared to Indian standards,
as held by the Supreme Court in Satinder Kaur (supra).
32. Mr. Joshi therefore urges that the respondents are entitled to
consortium of Rs. 40,000 each, aggregating to Rs. 1,20,000 along with
funeral expenses of Rs. 15,000 and loss of estate of Rs. 15,000. Mr. Joshi
further submits that the First Appeal of the Appellant be allowed and the
Cross - Objection of the Respondents, is devoid of merit and ought to be
dismissed.
Submission of the Respondents :-
33. Mr. Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondents,
would submit that the Impugned Judgment of the MACT suffers from
serious infirmities and irregularities. This is inasmuch as the MACT has
15 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
relied on documents which are not legally admissible, without considering
the objection of the Appellant, which has led to an incorrect computation of
compensation payable to the Respondents, which is not justified in law.
34. Mr. Hegde would further submit that the MACT has specifically
recorded, more particularly in paragraph 15 of the said judgment, that the
income certificate of the deceased Mrs. Kavita Sawlani was produced along
with oral evidence, and was identified by her erstwhile employer, Abdulla,
in his deposition. As a result, the document came to be marked as Exhibit-9.
The bank statement and vouchers were called upon to be produced during
cross-examination and were accordingly marked and considered in
evidence.
35. Mr. Hegde has submitted that various documents such as income
proof, bank statements, have been produced and specifically marked by the
MACT. These would corroborate the evidence of the erstwhile employer of
the deceased, Mrs. Sawlani.
36. According to Mr. Hegde, in addition to the evidence led on behalf of
the Respondents, the Appellant had itself called upon the Respondents to
produce the bank statements on record, which were accordingly produced
and duly considered. Further, Mr. Sawlani, Respondent No. 1, has stated in
his evidence that he did not earn any amount in the year 1992-1993,
thereby making it clear that, in the absence of his income, the amounts
16 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
reflected in the joint statement would constitute the income of his wife.
37. Mr. Hegde would submit that Respondent No. 1 has placed on record
the fact that the deceased, Mrs. Kavita Sawlani was a Bachelor of Arts who
had assisted him in a number of ways after their marriage. This is duly
corroborated by the evidence of the erstwhile employer, Abdulla,
establishing the involvement of deceased, Mrs. Kavita Sawlani, in the
project of her erstwhile employer.
38. Mr. Hegde would submit that the MACT has considered the entire
evidence on record to give a clear finding in paragraphs 7 to 9 of the
Impugned Judgment with regard to the composite negligence of both the
drivers. The MACT has also considered the FIR and Panchnama to
corroborate the evidence of Respondent No. 1.
39. Mr. Hegde would submit that since both vehicles were insured with
the Appellant, the Appellant cannot escape liability for paying
compensation in the present case.
40. Mr. Hegde would submit that the Appellant's contention, that since
five passengers were traveling in the vehicle along with the driver, there
was a breach of the terms of the policy by the Respondents and, therefore,
the Appellant is not liable to pay under the said policy is incorrect. Out of
the five passengers, one passenger was a minor in the present case.
Therefore, in any event, the carriage of one additional passenger cannot be
17 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
considered a fundamental breach of the policy, and no evidence has been
led by the Appellant to demonstrate the same.
41. Mr. Hegde would submit that since there are three dependents of the
decreased the deduction towards personal expenses would be to the extent
of 1/3rd.
42. Mr. Hegde would then submit that under the Second Schedule to the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1998 multiplier for fatal accidents where the deceased
was aged between 40 and 45 years is 15%. However, overlooking this the
MACT has applied the multiplier of 12 in computing the compensation, in
the given case. Accordingly, the Respondents are entitled to revision of the
multiplier from 12 to 15 in determining the legally correct compensation
payable to the Respondents.
43. Mr. Hegde has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court
in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others 4, more
particularly paragraph 49 of the said judgment, to buttress his submission
regarding the absence of any breach of the policy by the Respondents as
alleged by the Appellant.
44. Mr. Hegde would refer to the cross objection filed by the Respondents
in this appeal with regard to the enhancement of compensation. Mr. Hegde
would submit that although the deceased, Mrs. Sawlani, earned 2.9 Million
4 (2004) 3 SCC 297
18 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
AED in the year 1993, in the 4 - 5 months of 1994 till May 1995, she had
already earned 1 Million AED. In this context, he would place reliance on
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kavita Balothiya & Ors. Vs. Santosh
Kumar & Anr.5 on the aspect of awarding fair and just compensation. Mr.
Hegde would submit that it would be just and proper to consider awarding
compensation on the basis of the deceased's annual earnings of AED 2.9
Million.
45. Mr. Hegde would contend that the MACT has grossly erred in failing
to award any future prospects while otherwise allowing the claim of the
Respondents. In this context, he would submit that the age of the deceased
at the time of the accident was about 40 years. Future prospects for a
person between the age group of 40 years to 50 years is 25%. This is in
conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra). Accordingly, if the deceased was born two months earlier, the
future prospects would be computed at 40% in terms of the said decision.
Mr. Hegde would therefore contend that deduction of 15% future prospects
is clearly contrary to law as this is neither stipulated by the legislature nor
by the Supreme Court in the said decision of Pranay Sethi (supra).
46. Mr. Hegde would next contend that if the income of the deceased is
considered as 2.9 Million AED per year then the future prospects as per
40% would be 4.06 Million AED and as per 25% the same would be 3.625
5 Civil Appeal No. 8053 of 2024, decided on 22.07.2024
19 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
Million AED. If the income is considered 1 Million AED per year then the
future prospects at 40% would be 1.40 Million AED and as per 25% it
would be 1.25 Million AED. Mr. Hegde would refer to a chart which has
been separately tendered by him on behalf of the Respondent to assist this
Court in computing in enhancement of compensation payable to the
Respondents.
47. Mr. Hegde has relied on the following paragraph in the decision of
the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) which is extracted below :-
"57. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept
of "just compensation" and the same has to be
determined on the foundation of fairness,
reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal
standard because such determination can never be in
arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The
aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to
arithmetical precision on the basis of materials
brought on record in an individual case."
48. Mr. Hegde has submitted that the Supreme Court has held that
determination of the concept of just compensation can never be in
arithmetical exactitude and acceptable degree of proximity should be
brought out by considering the material evidence on record in individual
cases. In view thereof, it would be proper and apposite to consider the
future prospects at 25% for the age of the deceased at 40 years, at the time
of the accident, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the given
case.
20 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
49. Mr. Hegde would then contend that the deceased was residing at
Dubai and was also providing her professional services in Dubai. Admittedly
all the Respondents - Claimants along with the deceased were residing in
Dubai prior to the said accident of the deceased Mrs. Sawlani. The deceased
and Respondent No. 1 were both earning in Dirhams i.e. AED (United Arab
Emirates Dhirams). The claim of the Respondents has been considered by
applying the exchange rate at the time of the accident being 1 AED = Rs. 7
whereas the position of the AED has strengthened over the period for which
the Respondents claim is pending and presently as on the date when this
Court had heard the matter and reserved for judgment the rate of 1 AED is
now Rs.24.78 Paisa.
50. In regard to the above Mr. Hegde would refer to the decision of the
Supreme Court in Balram Prasad Vs. Kunal Saha & Ors. 6. More particularly
paragraph 134 of the said decision which reads thus:-
"134. Further, the claimant has rightly pointed that
the value of Indian currency has gone down since the
time when these legal proceedings have begun in this
country. This argument of the claimant has been
accepted by us while answering the point nos. 2 and
3. Therefore, it will be prudent for us to hold the
current value of Indian Rupee at a stable rate of
Rs.55/- per 1$"
51. Mr. Hegde would contend that considering the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi and Ors (supra) with 10% enhancement in
6 AIR 2013 SC 528
21 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
a span of every three years the loss of consortium for each dependent would
be Rs.48,000/- and Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral
expenses, respectively.
52. Mr. Hegde would then refer to the cross objections preferred by the
Respondents in the given appellate proceedings. He would contend that the
MACT has erred in granting the interest of 9% from the date of the award
whereas it ought to have been granted from the date of filing of the claim
petition by the Respondents before the MACT. He would therefore submit
that after redetermining the compensation on the above parameters this
Court by passing the necessary orders for the grant of enhanced
compensation in terms of the above ought to have awarded interest at 9%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition by the Respondents
before the MACT, to be awarded in favour of the Respondents.
Analysis :-
53. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at
length. With their assistance, we have carefully perused the record. Upon a
careful perusal of the Impugned Judgment of the MACT and the issues
framed by it, we find that Issue No. 3, i.e., "whether the Applicants are
entitled to compensation," is the most relevant for adjudicating the present
Appeal.
54. It is pertinent to note that the particulars of the accident that
22 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
occurred on 3 July 1994 are not disputed. The fact that the car bearing
registration No. MH-02-8639, which was used for traveling from Mumbai to
Shirdi on the said date, met with an accident is also not controverted. Nor
is it disputed that Mrs. Kavita Sawlani and her sister, Kanchan, who were
traveling in the said car on that date, lost their lives in the accident. The
particulars of the accident are thus uncontroverted.
55. From the evidence on record, it appears that the insurer has accepted
that the offending vehicle, at the material point of time, was being driven
rashly and negligently. Accordingly, taking into consideration the evidence
of CW-1, the FIR, and the Panchanama, the Respondents have proved that
the offending vehicle, at the material time, was being driven negligently
and/or rashly. We find no infirmity in the findings of the MACT in this
regard, wherein it has answered Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative.
Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the post-mortem report has not been
denied by the insurer in the cross-examination, and the same is therefore
deemed to have been admitted by the Appellant i.e. the Insurer.
56. With regard to Issue No. 3 framed by the MACT, which pertains to the
entitlement of the Respondents to compensation in the given facts and
circumstances, the same needs to be considered and determined on the
basis of the vital documents brought on record, coupled with the evidence
of CW-1, i.e., the husband of the deceased, Mr. Sawlani, and CW- Abdulla,
23 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
i.e. with whom Mr. Sawlani was working as Project Engineer, undertaking
work of Property Developer.
57. We would first examine the evidence of Claimant Witness-1, Mr.
Sawlani i.e. the husband of the late Mrs. Kavita Sawlani. It appears from
the evidence that he has stated that the late Mrs. Kavita Sawlani was an
Arts graduate who used to assist him in his business activities, which has
been denied by the Appellant. It is the Appellant's case that Respondents
have not been able to produce photographs of any work done by Mrs.
Kavita Sawlani for the said CW-Abdulla, as emphasized by Mr. Joshi during
the hearing. However, the said witness Abdulla has clearly deposed that she
used to assist him in obtaining market information, procuring furniture and
fixtures, suggesting building designs, as well as helping him with accounts.
She was paid for this work by Abdulla. Despite being cross examined by the
Appellant, the above testimony remained unassailed.
58. The late Mrs. Kavita Sawlani earned an income of 2.9 Million
Dirhams (approximately Rs. 2.5 crores) for the work done during the year
1992-1993, and for the work in May 1994, she earned about 1 Million
Dirhams (approximately Rs. 90 lakhs). In this regard, Respondent No. 1 in
his evidence placed reliance upon the certificate issued by Abdulla, for
whom late Mrs. Kavita Sawlani was also working. These documents were
exhibited and marked by MACT. In the cross-examination of Mr. Sawlani, he
24 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
specifically deposed that during the years 1992 to 1994, he did not earn
any income from any source which is eventually proved, as recorded in the
Impugned Judgment of MACT.
59. We find merit in the submission of Mr. Hegde that the mere absence
of a specific qualification as an interior designer or architect, in the facts
and circumstances of the present case, pales into insignificance. It is
pertinent to note that no suggestion was put to the said witness, i.e. Mr.
Sawlani, by the Appellant that Mrs. Kavita Sawlani was not working as an
interior designer with him and/or Abdulla. The Appellant has failed to
show much less prove that the said employer/Abdulla required any such
specific/particular qualification for the job/work done by Mrs. Sawlani.
Neither has Abdulla stated in his evidence/cross-examination that such job
required specific qualification/criteria. This is so because the deceased, Mrs.
Kavita Sawlani, was working for Abdulla, specifically after due
consideration of her prior work experience. There is nothing on record, by
way of documents or evidence, to discredit or disprove the same, on behalf
of the Respondents.
60. Apropos the above, we find no irregularity in the finding of the
MACT to the effect that the Appellant has failed to prove that the late Mrs.
Kavita Sawlani was working as a Project Consultant for the said Abdulla at
the relevant time.
25 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
61. With regard to the income of Mrs. Kavita Sawlani, the Appellant, in
the cross-examination of Mr. Sawlani, was called upon to produce bank
statements and various vouchers, which he duly did. The documents so
produced by Mr. Sawlani, including inter alia the bank statements and
vouchers, were furnished upon the Appellant's request and are therefore
required to be exhibited/marked in evidence. In this context, it is pertinent
to note that Claimant Witness (CW), Abdulla, had deposed that Mrs. Kavita
Sawlani had no bank account of her own, which the Appellant seeks to rely
upon in its favour. However, the said CW - Abdulla, clarified in his
deposition that all payments for the work done were made to Mr. Sawlani
on behalf of Mrs. Kavita Sawlani. He used to obtain bank statements as
acknowledgment of such payments. The Appellant has failed to controvert
the above through cross examination and/or otherwise.
62. Respondent No. 1 has duly relied upon a General Power of Attorney
dated 11 November 1991, executed by late Mrs. Kavita Sawlani in favour of
Respondent No. 1. A perusal of the said document reveals that it was
executed by late Mrs. Kavita Sawlani in favour of Respondent No. 1, who is
the Power of Attorney holder. By the said General Power of Attorney,
Respondent No. 1, Mr. Sawlani, was duly authorized to collect all money,
debts, and accounts due, payable, or belonging to Mrs. Kavita Sawlani, to
buy and sell land; to enter into contracts in this regard, including to buy,
sell, exchange, mortgage, hypothecate, assign, or otherwise deal with the
26 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
properties mentioned therein. He was also authorized to execute
acknowledgments and deliver contracts of sale, debts, and leases on behalf
of Mrs. Sawlani. It is pertinent to note that the said document has neither
been disputed nor denied by the Appellant in the evidence led during the
proceedings.
63. Upon perusal of the cross-objection of CW - Abdulla, it becomes clear
that the said General Power of Attorney was shown to him. By virtue of
Clause 2 of the said Power of Attorney, Mr. Sawlani could sign on her
behalf, the MoU executed before undertaking any contract or project work.
He has clearly deposed that he had seen Mrs. Kavita Sawlani signing the
said Power of Attorney and that he is familiar with her signature, which has
been duly proved against the Appellant as reflected in the Impugned
Judgment of the MACT.
64. We have duly noted that one of the documents relied upon, besides
the above, is the income certificate issued by CW - Abdulla. The said
certificate, dated 2 March 1995 and marked in evidence, reveals that the
late Mrs. Kavita Sawlani had been associated with the said Abdulla since
1991. It is also stated that she had completed various assignments with the
said firm. Her remuneration for the 12 months as a Project Consultant was
2.5 Million Dirhams in the year 1993. She was working for CW - Abdulla,
on various projects, for which she received 1 Million Dirhams in May 1994.
27 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
This must be appreciated in light of the deposition of CW - Abdulla, who
has clearly stated that all payments made for the work done were paid to
Mr. Sawlani on behalf of Mrs. Kavita Sawlani which stands proved.
65. Further, in the absence of any denial or dispute raised by the
Appellant regarding the veracity, authenticity, or otherwise of the income
certificate dated 2 March 1995 (Exhibit-9), the same stands duly proved,
along with the Power of Attorney (Exhibit-7), dated 11 November 1991
executed by Mrs. Kavita Sawlani in favour of the Power of Attorney holder,
i.e. Mr. Sawlani.
66. In this context, we may refer to Section 94 of the Evidence Act,
according to which, when the language used in a document is plain in itself
and applies accurately to existing facts, no evidence may be given to show
that it was not meant to apply to such facts. Even otherwise from the
material on record, we are unable to accept the submission of the Appellant
that they were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the Respondents'
witnesses on certain issues regarding the said documents, inter alia, the
Power of Attorney and the income certificate. In the given facts, Section 94
of the Evidence Act would clearly apply, qua the aforementioned documents
which the contents are res ipsa loquitur.
67. We would now examine the matter on the basis of the three MoUs
dated 15 November 1992, 11 June 1992, and 2 February 1992, along with
28 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
the site plan of the building, being relevant. It is clearly stated that all three
MoUs pertain to agreements entered into between the claimant's witness -
Abdulla, and Mrs. Kavita Sawlani in respect of the interior designing of the
building mentioned therein. All these MoUs were signed by Mr. Sawlani and
Abdulla, and the contents of the documents are correct. The said documents
were executed and signed by the Respondent No. 1, Mr. Sawlani, on behalf
of Mrs. Sawlani. There is no cross-examination by the Appellant on this
aspect. In any event, as observed above, Section 94 would apply even in
this regard, since the existence, contents, veracity, and genuineness of the
said MoUs have not been disputed, much less controverted, by the
Appellant. There is, therefore, no reason to disbelieve or discard them in
evidence. Accordingly, the MoUs in respect of which evidence has been led
are also duly proved by the Respondents.
68. It is pertinent to note that the Power of Attorney, which is undisputed
and duly proved, authorises Mr. Sawlani to sign on behalf of Mrs. Kavita
Sawlani, inter alia, on documents such as MoUs and contracts. The
Appellant has failed to dislodge/discredit the evidence on record in respect
of the said MoU. In fact, Mrs. Kavita Sawlani had, by virtue of the Power of
Attorney (Exhibit 7), conferred authority upon Mr. Sawlani to execute such
documents, including the MoU/contract. Therefore, there is no reason to
disbelieve the evidence led by the Respondents, which stands duly proved
as rightly observed in the Impugned Judgment.
29 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
69. We would now deal with the other important document, i.e., the
bank statements (Exhibit - 6), which have been duly placed on record and
exhibited/marked in evidence by the MACT. The only ground taken by the
Appellant to refute the income of Mrs. Kavita Sawlani based on such bank
statements is that the amounts representing income earned by Mrs. Kavita
Sawlani could not be verified and, therefore, cannot be relied upon.
However, it is pertinent to note that the Appellant has led evidence in
respect of this document, and the claimant's witnesses were duly cross-
examined on the same. The evidence of both claimants' witnesses in this
regard makes it clear that Mrs. Kavita Sawlani never had a bank account of
her own, rather, she had a joint account with her husband, wherein all the
monies were received by the husband on her behalf. This fact is
corroborated by the Power of Attorney, which has been duly proved, as
noted above.
70. Moreover, as noted (supra) from the evidence of Mr. Sawlani (i.e.
CW-1), it becomes clear that he was not working during the period from
1992 to 1994 and did not have any income of his own. Therefore, the
income to the extent of 1 Million Dirhams up to the year 1994, as stated in
the income certificate dated 2 March 1995 (Exhibit-9), in respect of which
evidence was led and duly proved, becomes attributable to Mrs. Kavita
Sawlani.
30 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
71. From the documents placed on record, read with the evidence, we
find that the Appellant has failed to dislodge the credibility of both the oral
and documentary evidence led by the Respondents. The admissibility of the
documents has been rightly determined with reference to the principle
enshrined under Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, we find no
reason to interfere with the findings of the MACT in the impugned
judgment to the extent that the aforesaid documents, i.e. the Power of
Attorney (Exhibit 7), the Income Certificate (Exhibit 9), and the Bank
Statement (Exhibit 6), have been duly proved by the Respondents.
72. We agree with the finding of the MACT regarding the determination
of the income for the year 1994, which comes to about 1 Million Dirhams,
i.e., Rs. 70,00,000 per year, as corroborated by the documents and evidence
on record, as analyzed above. There is no irregularity, much less perversity,
in the MACT's finding that the income of the late Mrs. Kavita Sawlani for
the year 1994 was 1 Million Dirhams which comes to about Rs. 70,00,000
per year as per the Impugned Judgment.
73. We have duly noted that the Respondents have filed cross-objections
in these proceedings. This is mainly on the grounds summarized below:-
a) That the MACT erred in considering the age of the deceased at
40 years at the time of her death. However, according to the
Respondents she was short of such age by about a couple of months
31 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
at the time of her death and therefore, multiplier that should have
been considered of 20 and not of 12 as considered by the MACT. In
this context, reference is invited to the decision of the Supreme Court
in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
Another 7. We may note that the age of the deceased as evident from
the record at the time of her death was 40 years accordingly, the
correct multiplier which ought to be taken is of 15 in terms of the
decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), for the
purposes of computing final compensation.
74. We are in agreement with the findings in the impugned judgment of
the MACT to the extent that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the
dependent children of the late Mrs. Sawlani. The Appellants have not been
able to demonstrate or prove that the said Respondents were having their
independent source of income and were therefore, not dependent on the
late Mrs. Sawlani. Accordingly, the MACT, in the absence of
evidence/material to the contrary, is justified in confirming the entitlement
of loss of consortium in favour of the eligible Respondents.
75. As far as the aspect of future prospects is concerned, the same ought
to be taken at 25% in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Pranay
Sethi. (Supra). The Supreme Court in this regard has categorically held that
addition of 25%, where the deceased is aged between 40 to 50 Years. The
7. (2009) 6 SCC 121
32 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
future prospects at 25% may accordingly be considered in computing the
compensation payable to the Respondents.
76. In the above context, we may note that in a recent decision of the
Supreme Court in Kulwinder Kaur And Ors. Vs. Parshant Sharma & Anr 8,
the Supreme Court observed that the deceased was a national of the United
States, thus, he belonged to a foreign country and was found to be self-
employed in that country. There can be no gainsaying that in assessing
future prospects of persons employed in a foreign country like the USA, as
compared to persons employed in India, would become difficult for the
reason that the socio-economic and political conditions of any foreign
country would be different. Even as the Supreme Court was not oblivious to
the said aspect, in order to determine just and fair compensation payable to
a person who died in an accident occurring in India, the dictum of law laid
down in Pranay Sethi (supra) has to be followed and applied, unless
material evidence is available to determine future prospects in the foreign
country. Accordingly, the Supreme Court in the said decision extended the
benefit of the future prospects component for compensation payable in
conformity with the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra).
77. For these reasons, the contention of Mr. Joshi that future prospects
cannot be considered as the deceased and the Respondents were all along
working in Dubai, would not be tenable.
8. Civil Appeal No. 820 of 2019 decided on 8 August 2025.
33 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
78. In our view, for the above reasons, the income of late Mrs. Kavita
Sawlani ought to be determined at Rs.70,00,000/- on the basis of which the
entire computation has to be made, which has been duly proved by the
Respondents.
79. The deduction towards personal expenses ought to be taken on the
basis of 1/3rd of the income of late Mrs. Kavita Sawlani. This is in terms of
the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra). The MACT in our
view erred in working out the dependency at Rs.46,00,000/-, which cannot
be accepted in the given facts and circumstances and considering the said
judgment of the Supreme Court.
80. The funeral expenses and loss of estate are to be computed at
Rs.15,000/- to be enhanced @ 10% for every three years in terms of the
decision of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) which has been duly
followed in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in V. Pathmavati &
Ors. Vs. Bharati Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 9 The determination
of funeral expenses at Rs.5,000/- by MACT is erroneous in light of the clear
mandate of such Supreme Court decision.
81. The MACT has erroneously awarded paltry sum of Rs.2,500/- for loss
of estate, which under the Supreme Court judgment in Sarla Verma (supra)
should be Rs.15,000/- to be enhanced @ 10% for every three years. This
would equally apply to funeral expenses, loss of estate which are
9. (SLP (C) No. 23880 of 2022 decided on 06.02.2026.)
34 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
accordingly to be computed accordingly.
82. The loss of consortium for each dependent is to be calculated on the
basis of Rs.40,000 to be enhanced @ 10% for every 3 years as laid down by
the Supreme Court in the decision of the Sarla Verma (Supra). The MACT
has, therefore grossly erred in computing consortium of Rs.10,000/- which
is contrary to the mandate of the Supreme Court decision in Sarla Verma
(supra).
83. For the above reasons, we are not in agreement with the computation
by the Appellant of consortium of Rs.40,000/- each aggregating to
Rs.1,20,000/- and Funeral Expenses at Rs.15,000/- and Loss of Estate at
Rs.15,000/- as stated in the written submissions filed before this Court. We
may also note that there is no serious dispute raised by the Appellant that
the interest is to be calculated from the date of the application and not from
the date of the impugned judgment/decree. Accordingly, we direct that the
interest @ 9% p.a. to be payable from the date of the claim application i.e.
23 December 1994 made before the MACT by the Respondents (Original
Claimants) on the compensation of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- due and payable to
the Respondents, which is in accordance with law.
84. For ease of reference, we set out the amount of compensation
payable to the Respondents by the Appellants. We therefore direct the
MACT to recompute the exact compensation payable to the Respondents
35 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
taking into consideration the income of the late Mrs. Kavita Sawlani at
70,00,000/-, in the following manner :-
Sr. Particulars Criteria
No.
1. Annual Income Rs.70,00,000
(This on the basis of the income of late
Mrs. Sawlani of 1 Million AED as
confirmed by the MACT which on the
basis of the then applicable exchange
rate comes to INR Rs.70,00,000/-)
3. Deduction towards personal 1/3
expenditure
4. Future Prospects 25%
6. The Loss of Dependency To be calculated by using the same
multiplier of 15 on the total annual
income.
7. Funeral expenses To be computed at Rs.15,000/- to be
enhanced @ 10% in every 3 years and
computed accordingly.
8. Loss of Estate To be computed at Rs.15,000/- to be
enhanced @ 10% in every 3 years and
computed accordingly.
9. Loss of Consortium for each To be computed at Rs.40,000/- to be
dependent enhanced @ 10% in every 3 years and
computed accordingly
85. Accordingly, the MACT is required to recompute compensation
due and payable to the Respondents in terms of the above. On such total
compensation there is required to be interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of
the Claim Application preferred by the Respondents (Original Claimants)
before the MACT, which the Appellant would be liable to pay to the
Respondents.
36 J-FA-1283-2003.doc
86. We pass the following order :-
ORDER
(i) The First Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) MACT shall recompute the compensation on the basis of the above
directions within a period of 6 weeks from the date of uploading of this
Judgment and Order, which would include the date of presenting the same
before the MACT. The parties shall co-operate with the MACT in
determining the compensation as indicated above within such time frame of
two weeks as directed.
(iii) The said amount after computation shall be released by the Appellant
to the Respondents within a period not later than 4 weeks from the date of
determination of such compensation along with interest payable @ 9% p.a.
from the date of filing of the Claim Application by the Respondents before
the MACT until its payment and/or realization.
(iv) Accordingly, the Civil Application filed by the Respondents regarding
the cross objections would not survive and is disposed of.
(v) No order as to costs.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.]
