1 FA 1161-2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1161 OF 2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Amravati Divisional Office Through The Regional Manager, Nagpur Regional Office, Chindwara Road, Nagpur. …. Appellant VERSUS 1. Ramdas Daulatrao Alaspure, Age : 51 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o. Swagatam Colony, Gopal Nagar, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. 2. Sau. Manda Ramdas Alaspure, Age : 44 Years, Occu. : Household Work, R/o. Swagatam Colony, Gopal Nagar, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. 3. Sumit Ramdas Alaspure, Age : 18 Years, Occu. : Education, R/o. Swagatam Colony, Gopal Nagar, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. 4. Vijay Dattuji Shinde, Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Driver, R/o. Backside of Karan Bar, Hamalpura, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. 2026:BHC-NAG:9326 2 FA 1161-2010 5. Jagdish Halkelal Gupta, Age : Adult, Occu. : Owner of Truck, R/o. Sabhapati Compound, Vasant Talkies, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. …. Respondents …. Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.N. Kukday Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. P.R. Agrawal Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. Pinak Vishwarupe h/f Mr. P.V. Navlani …. WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO.86 OF 2022 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Through its Divisional Manager, Rajapeth, Badnera Road, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. …. Appellant VERSUS 1. Ramdas Daulatrao Alaspure, Age : 65 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o. Swagatam Colony, Gopal Nagar, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. 2. Sau. Manda Ramdas Alaspure, Age : 55 Years, Occu. : Household Work, R/o. Swagatam Colony, Gopal Nagar, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. 3. Sumit Ramdas Alaspure, Age : 30 Years, Occu. : Education, R/o. Swagatam Colony, Gopal Nagar, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. 3 FA 1161-2010 4. Vijay Dattuji Shinde, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Driver, R/o. Backside of Karan Bar, Hamalpura, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. 5. Jagdish Halkelal Gupta, Age : Adult, Occu. : Owner of Truck, R/o. Sabhapati Compound, Vasant Talkies, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. …. Respondents …. Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.N. Kukday Advocate for Res. Nos.1 to 3/Cross Objectors : Mr. P.R. Agrawal Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. Pinak Vishwarupe h/f Mr. P.V. Navlani …. CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE ON WHICH ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD : 09 th JULY 2026 DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED : 22 nd JULY 2026 JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. 2. The appellant Insurance Company has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 29.07.2009, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati (for short, “the Tribunal”), in M.A.C.P. No.370 of 2006, granting compensation of Rs.9,32,000/-, inclusive of no fault liability amount with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization. 4 FA 1161-2010 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have also filed Cross Objection No.86 of 2022, praying for modification of the judgment and award dated 29.07.2009, passed by the learned Tribunal and for granting enhanced compensation. Brief facts of the case are as under :- 4. Deceased Amit Ramdas Alaspure was aged about 22 year old and student of MBBS 3rd Year. On 14.07.2006, after completion of examination, the deceased was returning to his home from Vilas Nagar to Jaistambh Chowk Road, on his motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-27-Y-2914. When he reached at Zunzunwala Square, at that time, truck bearing registration No. MQU-1212 gave dash to his motorcycle from behind. (The appellant Insurance Company disputing that the truck driver was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner). Due to said accident, the deceased was thrown on the road and sustained serious injuries on vital parts of his body and got unconscious. Accordingly, he was admitted to Bonde Hospital, Amravati. However, he succumbed to his injuries and died. 5. In view of the accidental death of deceased Amit, respondent Nos.1 to 3 claimants had filed claim petition bearing M.A.C.P No.370 of 2006, before the learned Tribunal, for grant of compensation. The driver and owner of the offending truck had filed 5 FA 1161-2010 its reply, thereby denying their liabilities. After hearing the parties, learned Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 29.07.2009, allowed the claim petition partly and directed the appellant Insurance Company, driver and owner of the truck to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.9,32,000/-, inclusive of no fault liability amount with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant Insurance Company approached this Court and filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Similarly, respondent Nos.1 to 3 claimants approached this Court and filed Cross Objection bearing No.86 of 2022, for enhancement of compensation. 7. Mr. Kukday, learned Advocate for the appellant Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is adequate and proper requires no interference. He invited the attention of this Court to the spot panchnama. According to him, the spot panchnama nowhere discloses that it was fault on the part of driver of the truck and there is nothing to suggest that the truck had given dash to the motorcycle of deceased Amit and therefore, since the truck driver is not negligent for causing the 6 FA 1161-2010 accident, the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. He submitted that the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is properly assessed and as such, no interference is required to upset the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. 8. Per contra, Mr. Agrawal, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 claimants/cross-objectors vehemently submitted that the appellant Insurance Company virtually failed to bring on record to prove that the driver is not responsible for the accident. Despite giving sufficient opportunities, the appellant did not examine the witnesses on this vital aspect. He further submitted that deceased Amit was medical student of MBBS 3rd Year and he had bright future. He submitted that the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is very much less and cannot withstand as per the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed and his cross objection is required to be considered for the purpose of enhancement of compensation by considering the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in AIR 2009 SCC 3104. 7 FA 1161-2010 9. After hearing learned Advocates for the parties and on going through the record, it can be seen that on the date of accident, deceased Amit was aged about 22 year old and college going student pursuing MBBS 3rd Year degree course. He was returned to his house from Vilas Nagar to Jaistambh Chowk Road on his motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-27-Y-2914. When he reached at Zunzunwala Square, at that time, truck bearing registration No. MQU-1212 gave dash to him. Due to which, the deceased was thrown on road and was seriously injured. He was admitted to Bonde Hospital, Amravati, however, he succumbed to his injuries and died. 10. As regards the accident resulting into death of deceased Amit, there is no dispute between the parties. However, Mr. Kukday, learned Advocate for the appellant Insurance Company seriously disputed about the negligence on the part of driver who was driving the truck at the relevant time. For that purpose, it is relevant to peruse the record pertaining to the documents like First Information Report bearing No.173 of 2006 and spot panchnama of the said accident. Both the FIR and spot panchnama recorded on 14.07.2006. The spot panchnama discloses that the truck was standing at the time of recording of spot panchmama towards the direction from Choudhary Chowk to Deepak Chowk towards Vasant Talkies. The motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-27-Y-2914 was seen lying 8 FA 1161-2010 down near the rear wheel of right side of truck. The spot panchnama describes the position of said motorcycle lying on the road after the accident. It is recorded about the damage caused to the vehicles particularly to the motorcycle. It is further recorded that the driver of offending truck was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner and gave dash to the motorcycle and thereby, injured the motorcycle driver, which is recorded on the basis of statement given by the informant viz. Rajesh Ugale, cousin of the deceased. 11. Perusal of the contents of FIR, it discloses that the truck bearing registration No. MQU-1212 was being driven by respondent No.4 in a rash and negligent manner and gave dash to deceased Amit. Due to which, the deceased was admitted to Bonde Hospital, Amravati. The FIR was registered on the basis of information received at 19.25 Hours of 14.07.2006 and the spot panchnama was recorded on the same day from 19.35 Hours to 20.05 Hours. 12. Learned Tribunal had framed a issue “whether the accident dated 14.07.2006, occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck No. MQU-1212 by respondent No.1 (therein) and/or Motorcycle No. MH-27-Y-2914 by the deceased Amit ?”. While answering the said issue, learned Tribunal has observed at para. 12 of the impugned judgment that PW1 Ramdas Alaspure, i.e. father of 9 FA 1161-2010 deceased Amit, in affidavit-in-lieu of examination-in chief, stated that deceased Amit was driving his motorcycle at moderate speed and offending truck came from back side in excessive speed and gave dash to the motorcycle. The appellant Insurance Company did not cross-examine PW 1 Ramdas Alaspure on this aspect. 13. On the contrary, the respondents therein want to put blame on deceased Amit for causing the accident. However, without cross-examine PW1 Ramdas on this vital aspect, the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the deceased was also liable for the accident cannot be accepted. It is admitted fact that the truck driver is prosecuted by the police. The FIR and spot panchnama show that the accident is occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. Hence, the contention of Mr. Kukday, learned Advocate for the appellant Insurance Company as regards the negligence on the part of of deceased is totally discarded. 14. As regards the issue of enhancement of compensation, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Claimants relied on judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishnupriya Panda Vs. Basanti Manjari Mohanty and Another, reported in 2023 ACJ 2393. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the future income of MBBS student 10 FA 1161-2010 died in the accident occurred in the year 2013 at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month. In another judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi Vs. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and Another, reported in 2015(2) SCC 180, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of accident occurred in the year 2002, has considered the future income of 19 year old medical student at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month. 15. In the case in hand, the accident occurred in the year 2006. The rate of Rs.25,000/- per month can sufficiently be considered as a future monthly income of deceased Amit in view of judgment in the case of Ashvinbhai (Supra). In addition, the claimants will be entitled for loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. By considering the said amount, the following calculations are being made. Monthly Income of the deceased. Rs.25,000/- Annual Income of the deceased (Rs.25,000/- X 12). Rs.3,00,000/- (-) ½ deduction as per the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. (-) Rs.1,50,000/- (+) 40% Future prospects as per the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. (+) Rs.60,000/- Salary for multiplier Rs.2,10,000/- (x) “18” multiplier as per the Judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, [(2009) 6 SCC 121], applicable to the age group of 20 to 25 (Rs.2,10,000/- x 18). Rs.37,80,000/- (loss of dependency) 11 FA 1161-2010 Loss of Consortium : (+) Rs.40,000/- for each claimant as per Judgment in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanuram, [(2018) 18 SCC 130] followed in United India Insurance Co. Vs. Satinder Kaur, [AIR 2020 SC 3076] (Rs.40,000/- x 3). (+) Rs.1,20,000/- Loss of Estate (+) Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses (+) Rs.15,000/- Total compensation payable to the claimants (Rs.37,80,000/- + Rs.1,20,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-) Rs.39,30,000/- Total Compensation granted by the Tribunal Rs.9,32,000/- + 7.5% p.a. Total enhanced compensation (Rs.39,30,000/- - Rs.9,32,000/- + interest 7.5% p.a.) Rs.29,98,000/- + 7.5% p.a. 16. Hence, in view of the above discussions, the appeal is dismissed. The cross-objection is allowed. The claimants/cross- objectors are entitled to receive an amount of Rs.29,98,000/- by way of enhanced compensation and the remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. The said amount be deposited in this Court within a period of six months from today. 17. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [ SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR ] JUDGE asd