5-FA-841-2019 (J).doc Harish IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 841 OF 2019 1. Smt. Shital Pramod Jadhav Age: 26 years, Occ : Nil, ] ] 2. Laxman Hariba Jadhav Age : 49 years, Occ : Agriculture ] ] 3. Sau. Mangal Laxman Jadhav Age : 46 years, Occ : Nil ] ] 4. Ku. Sravani Pramod Jadhav Minor, Next friend Mother Smt. Shital Pramod Jadhav, All are residing at Kumbhari, Taluka Jat, District Sangli ] ] ] ] ] …. Appellants Versus 1. 2. 3. Chhhabutai Hanmant Shinde, Age: Mejor, Occ : Owner,Residing at Achknnhali, Taluka Jat, District Sangli Manager, Reliance General Insurance Com. Ltd Ambani Group, 570, Naygaon Cross Road Next to Royal Industry Estate, Vadala West, Mumbai-400031 Hiralal Saheblal Shaikh Age : Major, Occ.: Nil. Residing at Tandur, Taluka Mangalveda District Solapur. ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] …. Respondents 1/6 HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Digitally signed by HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Date: 2025.09.24 19:49:53 +0530 5-FA-841-2019 (J).doc ----- Mr. Mahindra Deshmukh for the Appellants. Mr. Kanojia i/b Res Juris for Respondent No. 2 – Insurance Company. ----- CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 12th SEPTEMBER, 2025. ORAL JUDGMENT. : 1. By this appeal, the Appellants are seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. It is contention of learned counsel for the Appellants that the deceased was working with Hind Automobile Petrol Pump, King Circle, Matunga, Mumbai 19 and getting Rs. 5000/- per month salary, and was maintaining his family of four persons, but the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangli (for short “the Tribunal”) has considered his monthly income at Rs. 3000/- per month, which is on lower side. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellants further submitted that the Tribunal has deducted ½ amount for personal expenses, it should be considered ¼, as the deceased was married. He further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded future prospects, and the consortium amount awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. Hence, 2/6 5-FA-841-2019 (J).doc requested to allow the appeal. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for Respondent No.2- Insurance Company that it has not been proved before the Tribunal that the deceased was married. The claimant no. 1 in her cross- examination has admitted that she is not aware about the house number of the deceased, and she has not having ration card, nor she has having any evidence to show that the deceased was sending her money. The Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned order, no interference is required in it, and requested to dismiss the appeal. 5. I have heard both learned counsel, perused judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. 6. To prove the income of deceased, the claimants have examined PW1 - Shital (wife of the deceased) and PW2 - Jitesh Chavan (Co-worker of the deceased). PW1 – Shital has stated that her husband was working on petrol pump and getting Rs.5000/- per month salary. PW2 has stated that the deceased was working with him on Hind Automobile Petrol Pump, King Circle, Matunga and getting salary of Rs. 5000/- per month. Nothing elicited in the cross examination of these witnesses. 7. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has 3/6 5-FA-841-2019 (J).doc considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/- per month. In my view, it is on lower side. The deceased was working on petrol pump and getting salary of Rs. 5000/-. He was maintaining the family of four persons. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-2. Considering these facts, I am considering the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4000/- per month. 8. The Tribunal has deducted 1/2 amount for personal expenses, it is erroneous. The deceased was married person and claimant no.1 is his wife. She has stated that deceased was her husband and she delivered the child out of their wedlock, the Tribunal should have considered this fact. 9. It is the contention of learned counsel for Respondent No.2 -Insurance Company that in cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted that she does not know the house number and she does not have ration card. In my view, not having ration card and not knowing house number cannot dent the claimant’s case as the claimant no. 1 is the wife of the deceased. There are four claimants. Hence, the deduction amount for personal expenses is 1/4 and I am considering it. 10. While awarding compensation, the Tribunal has not 4/6 5-FA-841-2019 (J).doc awarded future prospects. As per the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the claimants are entitled for 40% future prospects. The Tribunal has awarded consortium amount on lower side. As per the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram 2018 ACJ2782 (SC), each claimant is entitled for Rs.48,000/- as consortium amount, Rs.18,000/- funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/- for loss of estate. 11. Considering above calculations, the claimants are entitled for following compensation. Monthly Salary Rs.4,000/- Add: 40% future prospects Rs.1600/- Total income Rs.5,600/- Annual Income Rs.67,200/- Less ¼ amount for personal expenses Rs.16,800/- Total Rs.50,400/- Multiplier 15 (Rs.50,400/- X 15) Rs.7,56,000/- Loss of consortium Rs.48,000/- X 4 (Claimants) Rs.1,92,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/- Total amount of compensation Rs.9,84,000/- Less awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 3,24,000/- Enhanced amount Rs.6,60,000/- 12. In view of above, I pass following order: 5/6 5-FA-841-2019 (J).doc ORDER i. Appeal is allowed. ii. The Appellants/Claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.6,60,000/- @ 7.5% interest from the date of filing claim petition till realization of the amount. Out of this amount Rs.2,28,000/- is consortium amount, the Claimants’ are entitled @ 7.5% interest on it from 1st November 2017, till realization of the amount. iii. The Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with accrued interest thereon, within six weeks after receipt of this order. iv. The Appellants/Claimants are permitted to withdraw the deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon. v. The Claimants shall pay the deficit Court fees on enhanced amount, if any, as per Rule. vi. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal. 13. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and disposed of. 14. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ( SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) 6/6