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. Mayur 2/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:43 :::
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 Mayur 3/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:43 ::: 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 Mayur 4/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:43 ::: 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. Mayur 5/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:43 :::
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., Mayur 6/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:43 ::: 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.
Mayur 7/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:43 :::
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 Mayur 8/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:43 ::: 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 Mayur 9/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:43 ::: 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 Mayur 10/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:43 ::: 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 Mayur 11/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:43 ::: 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 Mayur 12/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:43 ::: 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 Mayur 13/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:43 ::: 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 Mayur 14/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 ::: 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 Mayur 15/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 ::: 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 Mayur 16/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 ::: 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 Mayur 17/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 ::: 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 Mayur 18/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 ::: 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.
Mayur 19/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 :::
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 Mayur 20/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 ::: 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 Mayur 21/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 ::: 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, Mayur 22/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 ::: 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 Mayur 23/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 ::: 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.
Mayur 24/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 :::
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 Mayur 25/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 ::: 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. Mayur 26/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 :::
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 Mayur 27/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 ::: 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.
Mayur 28/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 :::
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.
Mayur 29/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 :::
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 Mayur 30/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 ::: 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 Mayur 31/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 ::: 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. Mayur 32/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 :::
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.) Mayur 33/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 ::: 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 Mayur 34/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 ::: 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%
5. Multiplier 15
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.
Mayur 35/36 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 :::
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.]
Mayur 36/36
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:02:44 :::