1 6) FA 56-2015.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 56 OF 20 15 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Parasia Through Nagpur Branch, Regional Office, Near T.V. Tower, Seminary Hills, Nagpur. ... Appellant .. Versus .. 1. Sulabai Wd/o Ramdas Kamble, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Household, 2. Dammanand S/o Ramdas Kamble, aged about 22 years, Occ, Nil, Both respondents no. 1 & 2 are R/o Ward No. 8, Ramai Nagar, Mahadula, Koradi. 3. Mukhtar Ahmed S/o Mustaque Ahmed, Aged about Major, Occ. Business R/o Badchicholi, Tah. Pandhurna, Distt. Chhindwada. 3. Mukhtar Ahmed S/o Mustaque Ahmed, R/o Shri Sartaj Transport, Santra Market, Near Railway Station, Nagpur ...Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A.W. Paunikar, Advocate for appellant. S/Shri Vijay Patait and Kiran Anasane, Advocates for respondent nos. 1 and 2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. DATE : 17 /01/2026 Amendment carried out as per Court’s order dated 08/12/2015 2026:BHC-NAG:918 2 6) FA 56-2015.odt ORAL JUDGMENT This is an Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 02/08/2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in Claim Petition No. 901/2008 awarding the compensation of Rs. 3,61,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant – Insurance Company and learned Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 and 2 – Original Claimants. None appeared for Respondent no. 3 though served through substitute service. Even before the learned Tribunal, Respondent no. 3 who is the owner of offending vehicle did not appear and contest the matter though served as seen from the observation in para 3 of the impugned judgment. 3. With the assistance of learned Advocate for the parties, gone through the paper book. 4. The aforesaid Claim Petition was preferred by the Respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are the widow and son of deceased Ramdas Kamble who succumbed to the injuries in a Motor 3 6) FA 56-2015.odt Vehicular Accident on 15/05/2008, while he was travelling on the bicycle from Mahadula to Nanda. The accident occurred due to dash by the bus. The bus was owned by the Respondent no. 3 and insured with the Insurance Company. The Claim Petition was contested by the Appellant - Insurance Company. The Respondent nos. 1 and 2 – Claimants and the Insurance Company led their respective evidence before the learned Tribunal. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and order directing the Appellant – Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the Claimants with liberty to recover the same from the Respondent No. 3 – owner of the offending bus. 5. It is submitted by learned Advocate for the Appellant – Insurance Company that, the owner of the bus had submitted the proposal for insuring the vehicle and submitted the cheque towards the premium for the Insurance Policy. The said cheque was dishonoured. The banker of the Insurance Company intimated about the same. The Insurance Company sent the intimation to Respondent no. 3 – vehicle owner and Regional Transport Office (RTO). He submits that since the cheque was dishonoured, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the 4 6) FA 56-2015.odt compensation. He further submits that the Appeal be allowed. 6. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 and 2 – Original Claimants that, though the cheque issued by the owner of bus towards the premium of the Insurance policy was dishonoured, the Appellant - Insurance Company failed to establish that, the intimation about the cancellation of policy was served on Respondent no. 3 – owner of the vehicle and RTO. He submits that the learned Tribunal has considered these aspects. In light of settled legal position, it is correctly directed to pay and recover the amount. He submits that no interference is called for and the Appeal be dismissed. He placed reliance on the judgment in the case of HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited. V/s. Nayajoddin Nijamuddin and ors. in First Appeal No. 2929/2019 decided on 01/12/2023 passed by this Court at Aurangabad Bench, in which, the similar issue was involved. 7. The Appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company only on the ground that, the cheque issued by Respondent no. 3 – owner of the bus towards the premium was dishonoured. On perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal shows 5 6) FA 56-2015.odt that, the witness examined by the Appellant – Insurance Company, namely Antimkumar Jain admitted in his cross- examination that, the Insurance Company did not file on record the acknowledgment letter to show that the intimation letter was received by the Respondent no. 3 i.e. vehicle’s owner. It reveals from his evidence that, the intimation letter was given to the Respondent no. 3 i.e. vehicle’s owner and the registering authority of the offending bus. Perusal of the said judgment cited by the learned Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 and 2 - Original Claimants shows that, the similar issue was involved in the said Appeal. The earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Inderjit Kaur and ors reported in (1998) 1 SCC 371 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Lakshmamma and ors. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 234, wherein it was held that the intimation of cancellation of the Insurance Policy by the Insurance Company is necessarily to be served on the vehicle owner and the registering authority were considered therein and the Appeal of Insurance Company was dismissed. Undisputedly, Respondent nos. 1 and 2 were the third parties to the insurance. In absence of the evidence to show that, the intimation by the Insurance Company about cancellation of 6 6) FA 56-2015.odt policy was duly served on Respondent no. 3 – vehicle owner and the registering authority, the observations and decision of the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted. The learned Tribunal has rightly passed the order of pay and recover. Thus, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order. 8. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 and 2 – Original Claimants that, though the Claimants have not preferred the cross appeal for enhancement, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal needs appropriate modification in view of the settled position under the law in the judgments of National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Pranay Sethi and ors. reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Nanu Ram and ors. reported in 2019 (4) Mh.L.J.1 towards future prospectus, consortium etc. He submits that it is the settled position under the law that, considering the beneficial nature of the legislation under which the claim petition is filed, the Court can modify the award in the Appeal preferred by the other side. The learned Advocate for the Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has appropriately considered the compensation amount and there is no need to modify the same. 7 6) FA 56-2015.odt 9. Perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal shows that the future prospects is not considered. In view of the aforesaid judgment in Pranay Sethi and ors. (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), 25% of the deceased’s proved income is required to be added to the compensation amount as the deceased was 45 years old at the time of death and the amount of Rs. 15,000/- each, towards loss of estate and funeral expenses are to be included. Further, in view of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the consortium @ Rs. 40,000/- each, to the claimants towards the spousal and parental consortium is required to be added. Considering these aspect, the compensation is worked out as under:- 1. Notional monthly income Rs. 3,000/- 2. Add – 25% towards future prospects. (+) Rs. 750/- Rs. 3,750/- 3. Annual income (Rs. 3750/- X 12) Rs. 45,000/- 4. Less –1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses. (-) Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 30,000/- 5. Multiplier of 14 (Rs. 30,000 X 14). (x) Rs. 4,20,000/- 6. Add : Loss of Consortium : Rs. 40,000/- for each claimant. (+) Rs. 80,000/- 7. Add : Loss of Estate (+) Rs. 15,000/- 8 6) FA 56-2015.odt 8. Add : Funeral Expenses (+) Rs. 15,000/- 9. Total compensation payable to the claimants Rs. 5,30,000/- 10. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal against the Appellant - Insurance Company and Respondent no. 3 stands modified to the above extent. The amount, be apportioned in the same proportion as done by the learned Tribunal. The rest of the operative order of the learned Tribunal remains the same. 11. Considering that, the claim petition was filed in the year 2008, it is expected that the Insurance Company will pay the compensation amount along with interest in this Court within a period of twelve (12) weeks. 12. After the amount deposited by the Insurance Company, the same be disbursed amongst Respondent nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Original Claimants in the same proportion as done by learned Tribunal. 13. The Appeal stands disposed of. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] B.T.K.