1 FA 990.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.990 OF 2025 Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Manik Plot No.7 & 8, Second Floor, Tatya Tope, West High Court Road, Nagpur, at post Tq. & Dist. Nagpur (M.S.)-440 010. (Policy No.VGC04110456000102) Valid from 30/5/2018 to 29/05/2019... Appellant ..Versus.. 1. Rekha wd/o Satish Murkute, Aged-30 years, Occu : Household. 2. Prajwal s/o Satish Murkute, Aged 8 years, Occu : Student. 3. Priya d/o Satish Murkute, Aged 6 years, Occu : Student. 4. Rukhmina wd/o Narayan Murkute, Aged 55 years, Occ-Household Applicant No.2 & 3 is minor Through Natural Guardian Mother i.e. Applicant No.1. All R/o. Shukrawar Peth, Washim, Pin-444505, Dist. Washim. 5. Sureshkumar Subesingh Aged-47 years, Occu-Owner and Driver, R/o. House No.166, VPO-Bindhroli, Dist-Soinpath (Haryana State) Pin-131001. .. Respondents ……………. Mr. Hitesh N. Verma, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. None for Respondent No.5. …………… 2026:BHC-NAG:10644 2 FA 990.25 CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. RESERVED ON : 12.08.2026. PRONOUNCED ON : 17.08.2026. JUDGMENT 1. The appellant-insurance company challenged the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim dated 03.05.2024 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.08/2019, only to the extent of quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in favour of the respondent no.1-claimant. 2. In the present case, the respondent no.5 to whom the notices were issued by this Court is unserved. However, as the issue of quantum of compensation is only involved and no role is to be played by the respondent no.5, this court with the consent of the parties, has taken the present appeal for final disposal. 3. In the present case, undisputed facts are that the respondent nos.1 to 4 are the original claimants before the Claim Tribunal. According to them, deceased Santosh was working in Balaji Construction as a mason. On 21.09.2018, when he was along with his friend was travelling in a jeep on Washim-Hingoli road, near Annapurna School, the offending Truck came from opposite direction and gave dash to the said jeep. In the said accident, deceased 3 FA 990.25 Santosh has sustained fatal injury and succumbed to the same. As such, the offence is registered in the matter and on the basis of police documents, the respondents-claimants had filed the Claim Petition before the MACT, Washim. The respondents, in support of their Claim Petition, has examined the respondent no.1, who is widow of deceased Santosh and to prove the monthly income of the deceased Santosh, examined the employer namely, Mukesh Rajput, who is the proprietor of Balaji Construction. 4. In the present case, no one entered into the witness box on behalf of the appellant and contested the Claim Petition on the basis of deposition and cross-examination of the witnesses produced by the respondents. 5. The learned Tribunal, in view of the evidence which was recorded before him and by relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, has considered the monthly income of the deceased of Rs.18,000/- per month and on the basis of same, awarded the compensation of Rs.42,08,000/- to the respondents- claimants. 6. The appellant has challenged the said judgment before this court by pointing out that the learned Claim Tribunal has not rightly considered the monthly income of the deceased on the basis of 4 FA 990.25 evidence available before him. According to the appellant, the respondent-claimant has examined the employer, who has stated in his evidence that since last 22 years, he is running Balaji Construction Company. The said company is executing the work of fitting the marble tiles at various places. The deceased was working with him as a mason since year 2009. Along with deceased Santosh, he was having seven masons and seven labourers working for fitting tiles at various places. It is stated by him that he used to pay Rs.720/- per day as a labour charge to the deceased. The work was remained available for 25 days in a month and also proved the certificate which was issued by him dated 14.12.2018. 7. In cross-examination, he has stated that his total yearly income is around Rs.7,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/- and he used to submit the regular returns to the Income Tax Department. 8. On the basis of this evidence, it is the submission of the appellant that if the employer was having the yearly earning up to Rs.7,00,000/- to 8,00,000/- per year, it is difficult to believe that he used to pay Rs.720/- per day to the mason and also paying certain amount to the labourers working with him. This evidence is not logical and, therefore, same was not properly appreciated by the learned Tribunal in the matter. 5 FA 990.25 9. The appellant’s submission is that the work of mason was not a regular work because the deceased was not appointed as a regular employee. He was working on a daily-wages. At the relevant time, as per the Minimum Wages Act and the Notification of the State Government, such person can get at the most Rs.300/- or Rs. 350/- per day and not more than the same. Hence, the learned Tribunal has committed an error by considering his daily wages as Rs.720/- per day and thereby awarded exorbitant compensation to the respondents. 10. The appellant also pointed out that deceased was 30 years old and, therefore, the future prospects was required to be considered by the Tribunal at the rate of 40%, but the Tribunal has considered it as a 50%. The same is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd .vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 11. It is also pointed out that the rate of interest which was awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% per annum is contrary to the settled legal position as laid down by the various judgments of this Court. According to him, the rate of interest ought to have been granted at the most 6% per annum. The appellant, by raising all these grounds, seeks modification of the order to the extent of 6 FA 990.25 quantum of compensation and the interest awarded by the MACT in the matter. 12. The respondent nos.1 to 4 has fairly admitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error by awarding 50% of future prospects which is contrary to the settled legal position. According to him, the future prospects should have been awarded to the extent of 40%. In respect of rate of interest which was awarded by the Tribunal, the respondent nos.1 to 4 states that as per the settled principles of law, same can be reduced up to 7.5% per annum. According to him, in many of the cases, this court by exercising the discretion, has awarded the rates of interest at 7.5% per annum and same is to be made applicable in the present case. 13. In respect of quantum of compensation at the rate of Rs.720/- per day which according to the respondent comes to Rs.18,000/- per month is properly appreciated and considered by the learned Tribunal. 14. The respondent no.1 has relied upon the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and other High Courts. To demonstrate that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases where no evidence or documents were produced by the claimants, has considered the monthly income up to the extent of Rs.15,000/- to 7 FA 990.25 Rs.18,000/- per month and, therefore, the view taken by the learned Tribunal is correct. It is further submitted that the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act is not a fair wage and court can always consider the monthly salary on the basis of real wages that were being paid in absence of documentary proof on the basis of speculation. The respondent nos.1 to 4 has relied upon the following judgments in the matter : (1) Smt. Neeta w/o Kallappa Kadolkar and others .vs. The Division Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur, reported in 2016 (1) ALL MR 508 (S.C.) (2) Saritha and others .vs. Siva and another, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Madras 16402. (3) Sebati Nath and others .vs. Shriram General Insurance Company limited, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3468. (4) M. Paramesh .vs. VRL Logistics Limited and another, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1188. 15. In the present case, the controversy is about the monthly income which was considered by the Claims Tribunal while awarding the compensation in favour of the respondent no.4. The appellant came with a submission that the employer who has been examined before the Tribunal has not properly stated the monthly income of the deceased and, therefore, this issue needs consideration in the matter. 8 FA 990.25 16. Per contra, the submission of the respondents-claimants is that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as Madras High Court, it is his submission that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases where the employee failed to furnish the documents has considered the notional income of the employee in between Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. The case of the respondents-claimants is on a better footing because they have led evidence and in support of their submission has also examined the employer. According to them, on the basis of yearly income of the employer, the salary which was paid to the deceased cannot be decided. The important fact which is required to be considered is that the employer has admitted that he used to pay Rs.720/- per day and the work was available with him for 25 days in a month. Hence, in the facts and circumstances, the yearly income drawn by the learned Tribunal to the extent of Rs.18,000/- per month is fair and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case. 17. Having heard both the Advocates and perusal of the record, it is clear that in the present matter, the widow of the deceased has stated that the deceased was earning Rs.700/- per day and having earning of Rs.21,000/- per month. In a cross-examination, she has confirmed this fact. The employer of the deceased though stated that he was paying Rs.720/- per day to the deceased, the submission of 9 FA 990.25 the appellant is that considering his yearly income, the statement of the employer is not trustworthy. In view of this controversy, in my considered opinion, merely because in the cross-examination, the employer has stated his yearly income Rs.7,00,000/- to 8,00,000/- cannot be a sole reason to disbelieve the daily or monthly income of the deceased. On the other hand, in my opinion, the respondent nos.1 to 4 have established the fact that deceased was doing the work of mason with him and was getting certain amount for the work. Therefore, the entire evidence of the employer cannot be said to be unbelievable in the matter. 18. This court, considering the controversy created on the yearly income of the employer, in my opinion, the masons who are generally available in the market for fitting of marble tiles are always charge the higher wages than a regular labourer. The labourers, after the period of Covid-19, are getting the daily wages around 500/- to Rs.600/- per day. Before Covid-19, the labourers doing in a construction work used to get Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per day. The masons, under whom labourers work as a helper, are certainly get the higher amount than the labourer. Therefore, in my considered opinion, by considering daily wages at the rate of Rs.500/- per day, monthly income of deceased needs to be considered at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month. 10 FA 990.25 19. In the present case, considering the evidence and the documents which are available on record, Rs.15,000/- per month would be the proper amount which can be considered as a monthly income of the deceased working as a mason. On that basis, the respondents-claimants are entitled for the compensation as under : Monthly Income of the deceased Rs. 15,000/- Annual Income of the deceased (Rs. 15,000/- x 12) Rs. 1,80,000/- (-) 1/4th deduction as per the Judgment of Sarla Verma v/s Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121. (-) Rs. 45,000/- (+) 40% Future Prospects as per the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 (+) Rs. 54,000/- Salary for multiplier Rs. 1,89,000/- (x) “17” multiplier as per the Judgment of Sarla Verma v/s Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 applicable for the age group of 25 to 30. (Rs. 1,89,000 x 17) Rs. 32,13,000/- (loss of dependency) Loss of Consortium : (+) Rs. 40,000/- for each claimant as per Judgment in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited v/s Nanuram (2018) 18 SCC 130 followed in AIR 2020 (SC) 3076 United India Insurance Co. Vs Satinder Kaur. (10% increase as per Pranay Sethi’s Judgment) (Rs. 53,240/- x 4) (2023 AIR (SC) 44) (+) Rs. 2,12,960/- Loss of Estate (+) Rs. 19,965/- Funeral Expenses (+) Rs. 19,965/- Total Compensation payable to claimants (Rs. 32,13,000/- + Rs. 2,12,960/- + Rs. 19,965/- + Rs. 19,965/-) Rs. 34,65,890/- 11 FA 990.25 20. In view of above, the respondent nos.1 to 4 are entitled total compensation of Rs.34,65,890/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum. In view of above stated reasons, the following order is passed : O R D E R (i) The impugned judgment passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.8/2019 is modified to the extent that the appellant and respondent no.5 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.34,65,890/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till the amount is realized in favour of the respondent nos.1 to 4. (ii) The appellant would be entitled to withdraw the excess amount which is deposited by the appellant with the Registry of this Court, after realizing the compensation amount as awarded by this Court. (iii) The rest of the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim dated 03.05.2024 is hereby confirmed. (iv) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. (Pravin S. Patil, J.) Gulande Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 18/08/2026 11:16:38