905-FA-1568-2007.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1568 OF 2007 1. Mr.Vipin Surendra Narula, ] Age : 37 Years, ] ] 2. Miss.Himani Vipin Narula, ] Age : 7 Years, Minor through her ] guardian Mr.Vipin Surendra Narula, ] Both residing at Balaji Garden, ] Flat No.602, Building No.2, Sector–11, ] ...Appellants Koparkharne, Navi Mumbai–400 709. ] (Original Claimants) Versus 1. M/s Kusle Agencies, ] Dalda Factory Compound, ] Ring Road, Latur (Maharashtra) ] ...Opponent No.1 Bombay–400 009. ] ] 2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ] Sai Krupa Commercial Complex, ] Gokhale Road, Naupada, Thane, ] ...Opponent No.2 District–Thane. ] (Respondents) ==================================================== Mr.Yash Dewal a/w Mr.Ashwin Kulkarni h/f Mr.Kailas Dewal:- Advocates for Appellants/Original Claimants. Mr.Devendranath S. Joshi:- Advocate for Respondent No.2– Insurance Company. ==================================================== CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 19th AUGUST 2026 Satish Sangar 1/7 SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2026.08.21 19:30:51 +0530 905-FA-1568-2007.doc ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard learned Advocate Shri.Dewal for the Appellants/Original Claimants and learned Advocate Shri.Joshi for the Respondent No.2– Insurer. 2. The wife of the Appellant No.1 died in a vehicular accident on 8th November 2004. At that time, she was 33 years old and serving as an Assistant Manager–HR in M/s.Reliance Industries Limited at Patalganga. She was proceeding to attend her job. She was travelling in auto rickshaw. The auto rickshaw stopped on left side of the road on Sion–Panvel highway and she alighted from the auto rickshaw. At that time, the driver of the lorry owned by the Respondent No.1 insured with the Respondent No.2 was taking U–turn. It was below over bridge of Vashi which goes to Panvel. He was rash and negligent and it struck the auto rickshaw and deceased from behind. The impact was so forceful that she was trapped below the lorry. She died on the spot. 3. There is an offence registered against the driver of the lorry. Her husband and minor daughter have claimed compensation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal–Thane (“Tribunal”). It was contested by both the Opponents. The negligence aspect is denied. The husband gave evidence and also examined one Ashok Baliram Pabwat–Service Satish Sangar 2/7 905-FA-1568-2007.doc Manager of Reliance Industries. The owner has not examined any witness. However, the insurer has examined the driver of the lorry. 4. After going through the police papers and the oral testimony, the Tribunal has concluded about rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the lorry. This part of the finding is not challenged. So, the only issue involved in this Appeal is “whether the Tribunal was right in granting just compensation”. 5. Mr.Dewal, learned Advocate for the Appellants has made the following submissions:- (a) Even though apart from the salary certificate, there is a letter dated 25th October 2004 showing the annual salary from 1st April 2004 to Rs.5,71,000/-. He is agitating this issue, because except that letter, no other supporting documents were produced. (b) The multiplier granted by the Tribunal was 12 whereas, as per the observations in Smt.Sarla Verma and Ors. V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.1, it ought to have been 16 considering the age of the deceased as 33. There is no dispute by learned Advocate Shri.Joshi. (c) He has produced calculation chart. According to him, as per the observations in Smt.Sarla Verma (cited supra), compensation can not be granted under the head “Loss of 1 AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3104 Satish Sangar 3/7 905-FA-1568-2007.doc love and affection”. Towards “Loss of consortium”, rupees forty eight thousand multiplied by two can be granted. As observed in case of United India Insurance Company Limited V/s. Satinder Kaur Alias Satwinder Kaur and Others2, now there cannot be a compensation towards “Loss of love and affection”. 6. Learned Advocate Shri.Joshi has invited my attention to the salary certificate at Exhibit–39. It shows the following facts:- (a) The amount due to the deceased for the month of October– 2004 comes to Rs.96,753.48. (It includes gross salary of Rs.39,735.48 and arrears to the extent of Rs.57,018/-). (b) As against this, the income tax deducted is Rs.22,064/-. According to Mr.Joshi, this amount is deducted considering the income to the tune of Rs.96,753/-. (c) According to him, instead of Rs.22,064/- from the gross salary of Rs.39,735.48, equivalent income tax ought to be deducted and then Court can consider it as a salary income. According to him, as per the observations in National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Pranay Sethi3 case, the deductions towards the income tax has to be excluded while considering the monthly income. Whereas, Mr.Dewal submitted that in fact, the Tribunal ought to have considered the letter showing the salary as mentioned above. 7. As said above, now in view of the observations in Smt.Sarla 2 (2021) 11 Supreme Court Cases 780 3 AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5157 Satish Sangar 4/7 905-FA-1568-2007.doc Verma‘s case, the Appellants are certainly entitled for the benefits granted as per the said judgment. When the Tribunal decided the matter, Smt.Sarla Verma’s judgment was not delivered. Even though it is true that the income tax has to be deducted as submitted by Mr.Joshi, in a given set of facts, I am not inclined to accept that submission. Ultimately, the Court has to arrive at a just compensation. I am giving more weightage to the income shown in the table Rs.39,000/- rather than Rs.39,700/- and not harping much on the letter dated 25th October 2004. In view of that, I am rejecting the submission of Mr.Joshi to that effect. 8. Accordingly, now the compensation is calculated as follows:- Sr.No. Heads Compensation Awarded/Stepped up (i) Monthly Income:- Rs.39,000/- (ii) Future Prospects:- Rs.19,500/- (50% of the Income) (iii) Deduction towards Personal Expenditure and Dependency:- Rs.19,500 (1/3rd of Rs.58,500/-). (iv) Total Income:- Rs.39,000/- (2/3rd of Rs.39,000/-+Rs.19,500/-) (v) Multiplier:- Rs.74,88,000/- (Rs.39,000/-x12x16). (vi) Funeral Expenses:- Rs.18,000/- (vii) Loss of Estate:- Rs.18,000/- Satish Sangar 5/7 905-FA-1568-2007.doc (viii) Loss of Consortium:- Rs.96,000/- (Rs.48,000/- per head) (a) Total Compensation Awarded:- Rs.76,20,000/- (b) Compensation awarded by the Tribunal:- Rs.56,16,000/- (c) Claim:- Rs.20,04,000/- Amount to be paid now:- Rs.20,04,000/- along with 7% interest. 9. In view of the above discussion, following order is passed:- -: O R D E R :- (a) The Appeal is allowed. (b) The Award dated 15th April 2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal–Thane is modified as follows:- (i) The Respondents are directed to pay jointly and severally a compensation of Rs.76,20,000/- (Rupees Seventy Six Lakh Two Thousand) (now the Appellants will be entitled to get only Rs.20,04,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Four Thousand). The Respondents to pay the deficit on original amount awarded. (ii) The Respondents are directed to pay this amount within a period of 8 weeks. The Tribunal has granted interest of 7% per annum from the date of Application till its realization. The Respondents are directed to pay 7% interest on the amount of Rs.20,04,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Four Thousand). (iii) Additional Court Fee be paid. Satish Sangar 6/7 905-FA-1568-2007.doc 10. In the light of the above observations, the Appeal stands disposed of. [S. M. MODAK, J.] Satish Sangar 7/7