Bombay High Court
Sunandabai Gulabrao Saner Patil And Anr vs Rajendra Bhaskarrao Vabhandik And Anr on 12 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:6196
FA-1964-2011.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1964 OF 2011
1. Smt. Sunandabai Gulabrao Saner (Patil)
Age: 47 years, Occ: Household Work,
2. Ganesh Gulabrao Saner
Age: 22 years, Occ: Education
Both R/o. Walkheda, Taluka: Shindkheda,
Dist. Dhule ...Appellants
Versus
1. Shri. Rajendra Bhaskarrao Vabhandik
Age: Adult, Occ: Maruti Van Owner,
R/o Mahalaxmi Colony, At: Shirpur,
Taluka: Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.
2. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Branch Office, Dhule,
Yashovallabh Shopping Complex,
Near Municipal Corporation,
At: Dhule, District: Dhule ...Respondents
***
• Mr. A. B. Gatne, Advocate for the Appellants
• Mr. V. R. Mundada, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2
***
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J
RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 06, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : FEBRUARY 12, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. In this Appeal, there is challenge by original Claimants to the judgment and award dated 19.04.2011 passed by learned MACT, Dhule in MACP No. 973/2009.
PAGE 1 OF 9 FA-1964-2011.odt
2. Present Appellants - Original Claimants set up above Claim Petition by invoking section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against owner/driver of the car and its insurer i.e. present Respondents contending that, on 14.07.2009 at about 05.00 p.m., while Deceased Gulabrao Saner was proceeding on motorcycle bearing no. MH-18-S- 9421 from village Nardana to Village Betawad, when he reached in the vicinity of village Varud, a car bearing registration no. MH-18-W-803 came in opposite direction and gave dash to the motorcycle. As a result of said accident, deceased died on the spot. It is contended by claimants that, the deceased was serving as a teacher in Vivekanand Vidhyalaya, Khalane and was receiving salary of Rs.29,747/- p.m and thereby set up a claim of award of compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.
3. The above claim petition was contested by present Respondent No. 2. Owner /driver did not contest. Insurance company, by filing written statement at Exhibit 13, denied all contentions of claimants and claimed that, deceased himself was rash and negligent in driving vehicle and was responsible for the accident.
After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by claimants, learned Tribunal recorded a finding that, claimants proved that, there was rash and negligent driving on the part of offending vehicle insured by Respondent No.2 and considering the PAGE 2 OF 9 FA-1964-2011.odt same as a base, awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs.14,32,756/- with 9% interest p.a. Being dissatisfied by the above judgment and award, Claimants have challenged the said award by filing instant Appeal. Appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for Appellants, after apprising this Court about above factual position and filing of above claim on account of demise Gulabrao in road traffic accident dated 14.07.2009 by vehicle of Respondent No. 1 insured by Respondent No. 2, would submit that, present Appeal is confined only to grant of meager compensation and not granting fair and just compensation. He pointed out that, learned Tribunal erred for applying split multiplier, which, in view of recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Preetha Krishnan and Others vs. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors , 2025 SCC OnLine 2365, is not permissible. He specifically invited attention of this Court to observations of Tribunal in paragraph 29, which according to him, deals with aspect of split multiplier.
On visiting the above referred judgment, there is force and submission to the above extent. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has deprecated the practice of applying split multiplier.
PAGE 3 OF 9 FA-1964-2011.odt
5. He would elaborate that, admittedly, deceased died in road traffic accident dated 14.07.2009 and at that time, deceased, who was 53 years of age, was in permanent employment as a teacher. That, he was due to retire at the age of 58 to 60 and, therefore, had almost half a decade to serve, earn and lend support to his family. He pointed out that, here, it is a matter of record that, insurance company has not led any independent evidence from their side. That, in fact, claim of present Appellants in the Tribunal has virtually gone unchallenged and findings of Tribunal with regards to rash and negligence are also in consonance with the evidence and record and learned Counsel justifies the same. However, while computing compensation, it is his submission that, it was substantiated before Tribunal that, the deceased was entitled for 6 th pay commission and even learned Tribunal took judicial note that, 6 th pay commission was liable to be made applicable and he justifies the observations to that extent. However, he expresses concern over the manner of calculating the compensation i.e. in deducting 20% of the income tax in absence of any objection or evidence from the insurance company. He pointed out that, the salary received by deceased ought to have been presumed to be after deduction of income tax and on this count, he seeks reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, more particularly, paragraphs 23 to 25 in the case of Vimal Kanwar and Others vs. Kisore Dan and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 476.
PAGE 4 OF 9 FA-1964-2011.odt
6. It is also his further contention that, learned Tribunal failed to grant future prospects, which, in fact, claimants was entitled to receive in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others , AIR 2017 SC 5157. He emphasized that, here deceased died at the age of 53 and was undisputedly a permanent employee and, therefore, facts of the case warranted grant of future prospects even though deceased was above 50 years of age but the same has not been considered.
7. It is also his contention that, even there is failure to consider appropriate consortium, which ought to have been granted as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 as well as judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Aruna Haumant Yadav and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 24.
8. He also urges for enhancing compensation under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses as meager compensation has been granted under both the heads. He finally placed on record above rulings as well as calculation pursis.
9. In answer to above, learned Counsel for Insurance Company would justify the judgment and award passed by Tribunal and prays to PAGE 5 OF 9 FA-1964-2011.odt dismiss the Appeal for want of merits. According to him, learned Tribunal has rightly refused to give compensation under the head of future prospects as deceased was on the verge of retirement and there were no future prospects to consider the same.
10. In the light of above submissions, here, undisputedly, before the Tribunal it was demonstrated that, deceased was 53 years of age and was working as a teacher. The headmaster of the institution has stepped into witness box who deposed about the salary income and also deposed about entitlement of 6th pay benefits to deceased. The papers placed before this Court by learned Counsel for Appellants in the form of notification of finance department, which makes it abundantly clear that, benefits of 6th pay are made retrospectively effective from January, 2006. Therefore, there is no reason to refuse the same, it was rightly even considered by Tribunal.
11. As pointed out, as regards to necessary deductions under income tax is concerned, salary certificate is on record. Here learned Tribunal, without any objections raised by insurance company, proceeded to deduct 20% of the salary by way of income tax. In the light of above cited judgment in Vimal (supra), even such steps taken by Tribunal amounts to overreaching in absence of any specific objection by insurance company before the Tribunal and it ought to have been PAGE 6 OF 9 FA-1964-2011.odt presumed that salary is inclusive of necessary deductions i.e. tax at source. There is no counter evidence or objection by insurance company to this extent and, therefore, as claimed, only deductions under professional tax is liable to be deducted. Therefore, even findings of Tribunal to that extent are required to be interfered with.
12. As pointed out, deceased was around 53 years of age. Tribunal has discussed the entitlement of future prospects in paragraph 26 of its judgment and has quoted the observations of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. However, as pointed out, there is a rider provided in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) that, in exceptional circumstances, future prospects can be granted above the age of 50 also. Here, as stated above, deceased met unfortunate death in road traffic accident at the age of 53 and he had plenty of service to his credit. Therefore, same can be considered as special circumstance to award future prospects in this case. Useful reference also can be made to this extent to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prany Sethi (supra), more particularly, paragraph 60, which reads as under:
60. The controversy does not end here. The question still remains whether there should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Sarla Verma PAGE 7 OF 9 FA-1964-2011.odt thinks it appropriate not to add any amount and the same has been approved in Reshma Kumari. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that salary does not remain the same. When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept.
We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self- employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the courts.
13. For above reasons, there is no reason not to grant future prospects though deceased was shown to be 53 years of age and apparently had almost a half a decade service to render. Therefore, necessary addition of 15% towards future prospects, as urged, be granted.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, claimants succeed in getting enhanced compensation as determined under:
Sr. Heads Amount (Rs.)
No.
1. Income 29,90,152/-
Rs.29,747/- per month x 12 =Rs.3,56,964/-
(-) 200 x 12 towards professional Tax= 2,400/- (-)1/3rd income towards personal expenses = 3,54,564 (-) 1,18,188= 2,36,376 (+) 15% towards future prospects = Rs.35,456/- Rs.2,71,832 x 11 multiplier PAGE 8 OF 9 FA-1964-2011.odt
2. Consortium 96,000/-
Rs.48,000/- x 2
3. Funeral expenses and loss of estate 30,000/-
4. Total compensation to be paid Rs. 31,16,152/-
5. Compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs. 14,32,756/-
6. Total enhanced compensation Rs. 16,83,396/-
15. In the result, following order is passed:
ORDER
(a) First Appeal is allowed with proportionate costs.
(b) Impugned judgment and award dated 19.04.2011 passed by learned MACT, Dhule in MACP No. 973/2009 is modified.
(c) Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation in this Court so as to enable claimants to withdraw the same.
(d) Respondents to pay compensation, as determined above, to claimants within 12 weeks from today along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of registration of claim petition till its realization.
(e) Modified award be prepared accordingly.
(f) Claimants to pay court fees on enhanced compensation as per rules.
(g) On deposit of the amount, appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw the same.
(h) Rest of the judgment and award of Tribunal to remain intact.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Umesh PAGE 9 OF 9