Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Mr. Ajay Sumankant Choudhari vs Mr. Ajay P. Trehan And Anr. on 14 July, 2025

Author: Shivkumar Dige

Bench: Shivkumar Dige

2025:BHC-AS:31392

                                                                                  65-(i)FA-448-2020.doc

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                                 FIRST APPEAL NO. 448 OF 2020
                      Ajay Sumankant Choudhari
                      Aged about 36 years,
                      Residing at 102, Om Co-op. Hsg. Society,
                      Laxmiben Chedanagar, Nalasopara(E),
                      Thane.                                          ...    Appellant

                          versus
                      1. Ajay P. Trehan,
                         302-1-A, Brindavan, Poonam Nagar,
                         Off Mahakali Cave, Andheri (E),
                         Mumbai - 400093
                         (Regd. Owner of Motor Car No.
                          MH-02-AP-6418)

                      2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
                         New India Centre, 8th Floor,
                         17/A, Cooperage, Mumbai - 400039.
                          Policy No. 460254983
                         Validity from 05/01/2010 to 04/01/2011
                         (orig. Insurer)No. MH-05-Q-4120.       ...          Respondents



                      Ms. Ketki Gokhale i/b A. M. Gokhale, for the Appellant.

                      Mr. T. J. Mendon a/w Mr. T. R. Kale, for the Respondent No.1.

                      Ms. Jyoti Bajpayee, for the Respondent No.2.


                                                           CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

                                                           DATE   : 14th JULY, 2025.

                      JUDGMENT:

REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Rekha Patil 1/5 Digitally signed by REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Date: 2025.07.28 15:08:23 +0530 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 01:52:33 ::: 65-(i)FA-448-2020.doc

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation.

2. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the deceased died due to accidental injuries. She was working as Branch Manager in Novel Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. and getting salary of Rs.12,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has not considered monthly income of the deceased. Learned Counsel further submitted that no future prospects are awarded and multiplier has not been applied. Hence, requested to allow the appeal.

3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company that no evidence is produced on record to prove the income of deceased. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects and has passed well reasoned order. Learned Counsel further submitted that the appellant cannot be considered as dependent on the income of wife. Hence, requested to dismiss the appeal.

4. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the judgment and order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai (for short "the Tribunal").

Rekha Patil 2/5 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 01:52:33 :::

65-(i)FA-448-2020.doc

5. To prove the income of the deceased, the claimant has examined himself. He has stated that the deceased was working as Branch Manager in Novel Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. at Nalasopara Branch and was getting salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. He further stated that the deceased had also completed LIC Agent training from Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (for short, 'IRDA') and had obtained licence from IRDA and she was doing LIC Agency and was earning Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per annum. In cross-examination, he has stated that his wife had joined the said job one year prior to the accident and she was getting salary in cash. He has further stated that during that period, his wife earned Rs.30,000/- to Rs.32,000/- by way of commission as LIC agent. The claimant has examined Sudhakar R. Paligela at Exh. 31, the Manager of Authority of Novel Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., he has stated that the deceased was working in their Novel Tutorials as Branch Manager at Nalasopara Branch and was getting salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. The salary certificate is at Exh. 32. In cross-examination, he has stated that they are not maintaining salary or attendance register of the employees working in Novel Tutorials. While dealing with the issue of income of the deceased, the Tribunal has observed that no income tax return is filed on record to show her income as insurance agent. On that ground, the Tribunal has not considered monthly income of the deceased. I am unable to understand the Rekha Patil 3/5 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 01:52:33 ::: 65-(i)FA-448-2020.doc observations of the Tribunal as it has come in the evidence of claimant that his wife was working as Branch Manager in Novel Tutorials and the said fact is supported by the evidence of PW-2. The salary certificate is produced on record. The deceased was also working as LIC agent. Considering this fact, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW 2. Considering evidence on record, I am considering monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-. The Tribunal has not awarded future prospects. At the time of death, the deceased was 29 years old. Hence, the claimant is entitled for 50% future prospects. As per the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram1 the claimant is entitled for Rs.48,000/- as consortium amount, Rs.18,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- for funeral expenses.

6. Considering the above calculations, the claimant is entitled for following compensation :

                                Particulars               Rs.          Amount
          Annual Income (Rs.12,000/- x 12)                Rs.           1,44,000/-
          50% future prospects                            Rs.           2,16,000/-
          Less 1/3rd deduction                            Rs.           1,44,000/-
          After multiplying x 17                          Rs.         24,48,000/-
          Consortium                                      Rs.           48,000.00
          Funeral Expenses                                Rs.           18,000.00
          Loss of Estate                                  Rs.           18,000.00

1 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC),

 Rekha Patil                                                             4/5




 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2025                      ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 01:52:33 :::
                                                                  65-(i)FA-448-2020.doc


          Total Compensation                               Rs.         25,32,000/-
          Awarded by Tribunal                              Rs.           1,62,500/-
          Enhanced amount                                  Rs.         23,70,000/-


7. In view of above, I pass the following order :

ORDER (1) The appeal is allowed.
(2) The claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.23,70,000/- @ 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing claim petition till realization of the amount. (3) The respondent -Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount along with accrued interest thereon within six weeks from the receipt of this order. (4) The claimant is permitted to withdraw the enhanced amount along with accrued interest thereon. (5) The claimant shall pay deficit court fees on enhanced amount, if any, as per Rule.
(6) Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) Rekha Patil 5/5 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 01:52:33 :::