fa 478-2025.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.478 OF 2025 1. United India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Regional Manager, Regional Office, 19, Ambika House, Dharampeth Extension, Shankar Nagar Square, Nagpur-440010. … APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Sushma Atmaram Misal, aged about 32 years, Occu: Household, R/O, Tirupati Gruh Nirman, Co-Op Society, Pimpalgaon Road, Yavatmal, Taluka & District Yavatmal 2. Sau. Lina Yogesh Dhande, aged about 45 years, Occu: Household, R/O, At Ward No. 4, Dehankar Layout Kalamb, Taluka Kalamb, Dist: Yavatmal 3. Sau. Veena Sunil Thakre, aged about 39 years, Occu: Household R/O, Plot No, 45, Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur District Nagpur 440024 4. Abhishekh Vinod Khode, aged about 26 years,, Occu: Driver, R/O, House No. 104, Sidheshwar Nagar, Chausala Road, Taluka & District Yavatmal. 2026:BHC-NAG:12787 fa 478-2025.odt 2 5. Suresh Manik Ambadkar, Owner, aged major, Regional Manager, Mah. State, Co. Op. Tribal Development Copn. Ltd., C/O, House No. 832, Vittha Sadan, Nasik, Taluka & District Nasik, Mah. 422001. … RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri D.B. Chatterjee Advocate for appellant Shri G.D. Asole, Advocate Shr J.S. Wankhede, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Shri D.P. Bhongade, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL , J. DATE D : 23.09.2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard. With consent of parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal in MACP No.145 of 2022, decided on 06.12.2024. 3. The appellant-Insurance Company challenged the fa 478-2025.odt 3 present appeal only on the ground of quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. According to the appellant, the calculations and the amount which has been awarded is contrary to the settled principles of law and, therefore, interference of this Court is necessary in the matter. 4. In the present matter, accident and the death caused to the deceased is not disputed. So also, there is no counter- appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the claim. Therefore, only limited issue which is involved in the present appeal is of the quantum of compensation which is awarded by the learned Tribunal by doing wrong calculation in the matter. 5. The appellant has pointed out that the deceased at the time of death was of 69 years old. Therefore, as per the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, the multiplier has to be made applicable of 5. However, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 9 in the matter. fa 478-2025.odt 4 Hence, the said finding of the learned Tribunal is contrary to the settled principles of law. 6. In respect of payment of consortium, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specified as to how that amount is to be awarded towards the consortium. However, the learned Tribunal by applying 10% increase from 14.11.1994, and thereby awarded the compensation of Rs.94,317.90, though the accident is of dated 26.02.2022. Therefore, applying 10% interest on the amount of consortium from 14.11.1994 is per se illegal as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 7. The appellant has further stated that as per the normal rule, on the compensation amount, the rate of interest has to be made applicable in between 6 to 9% per annum. However, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded fa 478-2025.odt 5 the rate of interest 12% per annum by recording the finding that if within a period of 30 days the amount of compensation is not deposited, then appellant will have to pay the compensation amount by penal interest of 12% per annum. According to appellant, this condition is not legal and correct as per the settled principles of law, and therefore, same needs to be corrected in the matter. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents- claimants has fairly admitted the fact that the multiplier and loss of consortium which is calculated by the learned Tribunal is not justified as per the settled principles of law. According to him, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), the principles are laid down, and on that basis, the calculation is required to be done. He stated that if by doing the calculations as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order passed by the learned Tribunal can be modified and just and proper compensation can be paid to the respondents-claimants. fa 478-2025.odt 6 9. In the light of these submissions of both the parties, I have perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned Presiding Officer. From paragraph No.34 of the judgment, it is though recorded that the age of the deceased was 69 years, he has applied the multiplier of 9 without recording any reasons. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the law is well settled that if the deceased at the time of accident was of 69 years old, then the multiplier of 5 would be applicable. Therefore, prima facie, the findings recorded in this regard are perverse and needs to be quashed and set aside. 10. In paragraph Nos. 37 and 38, the learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, while considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), without any reasons, has applied the interest on the payment of consortium with effect from 14.11.1994, when fa 478-2025.odt 7 admittedly the accident took place on 26.02.2022. Therefore, prima facie, the calculation made towards the consortium is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 11. In respect of awarding the 12% interest as a penalty for not depositing the amount within 30 days is also incorrect. As per the provisions of law, the appellant has every right to file the appeal before this Court against the judgment of Tribunal. The period of filing the appeal is 90 days. Hence, directing the appellant-Insurance Company to deposit the entire amount within a period of 30 days is contrary to the provisions of law. In view of this direction, appellant to pay 12% interest per annum from the date of award needs reconsideration in the matter. 12. In the present case, only dispute between the parties is about the medical expenses. According to the appellant, on the basis of internal inquiry conducted by his officer, the medical expenses according to him are Rs.2,19,430/- only. Per contra, as fa 478-2025.odt 8 per the submission of the respondents-claimants, they have produced the medical bills before the Claims Tribunal and all medical bills were duly exhibited. If the total calculation of the said bills is done, it comes to Rs.3,63,381/-. In the circumstances, the documents which are exhibited before the Tribunal needs to be considered while deciding the amount of medical expenses in the matter. Therefore, though the appellant has strongly raised objection against the same, but there is no other evidence on behalf of the appellant to demonstrate that the documents which are exhibited are not proved or incorrect or forged. Therefore, accepting the exhibited document available on record, the medical expenses are considered Rs.3,63,381/-. In view of above, the respondents-claimants are entitled for compensation as under: Sr. No. Particulars Calculation Amount 1. Monthly Income - Rs.12,000/- p.m. 2. Annual Income Rs.12,000 × 12 Rs.1,44,000/- 3. Loss of Future Earnings before Deduction Rs.1,44,000 × 5 (Multiplier) Rs.7,20,000/- 4. Less: 1/3rd Deduction Rs.7,20,000 × 1/3 Rs.2,40,000/- 5. Loss of Future Earnings after Deduction Rs.7,20,000 − Rs.2,40,000 Rs.4,80,000/- fa 478-2025.odt 9 6. Loss of Consortium Rs.47,031 × 3 Dependents Rs.1,41,093/- 7. Funeral Expenses As per Pranay Sethi Rs.15,000/- 8. Loss of Estate As per Pranay Sethi Rs.15,000/- 9. Medical Expenses — Rs.3,63,381/- Total Compensation Rs.10,14,474/- 13. In the circumstances, the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified as under: ORDER i) The First Appeal is partly allowed. ii) It is held that the respondents-claimants are entitled for the compensation amount of Rs.10,14,474/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 04.10.2022, till the full and final realization of the entire amount. iii) The rest of the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is hereby confirmed. iv) The appellants are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant before this Court as per the entitlement as quantified by this Court in the matter. fa 478-2025.odt 10 v) The rest of the amount after withdrawal by respondents- claimants, same shall be reimbursed to the appellant along with interest accrued thereon. 14. The First Appeal stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to the costs. (PRAVIN S. PATIL J.) R.S. Sahare Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 06/10/2026 14:33:37