RUKAYYABI MOHAMMAD IQBAL AND ORSversusGULAB MOTIRAM BADGUJAR AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:41440


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          908 FIRST APPEAL NO.4413 OF 2016

                     1   Gulab Motiram Badgujar,
                         Age 44 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
                         R/o Sakali, Tq. Yawal,
                         Dist. Jalgaon.
                         Since deceased through his legal representatives -

                         1A)   Yogita wd/o Gulab Badgujar,
                               Age 43 yrs., Occ. Housewife,
                               R/o Sakali, Tq. Yawal,
                               Dist. Jalgaon.

                         1B)   Durgesh Gulab Badgujar,
                               Age 18 yrs., Occ. Education,
                               R/o Sakali, Tq. Yawal,
                               Dist. Jalgaon.

                         1C)   Apeksha d/o Gulab Badgujar,
                               Age 12 yrs., Occ. Education,
                               Since minor, U/G of mother,
                               R/o Sakali, Tq. Yawal,
                               Dist. Jalgaon.

                     2   Ramesh Ramji Mahajan,
                         Age 55 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
                         R/o Sakali, Tq. Yawal,
                         Dist. Jalgaon.

                                                                … Appellants

                                       … Versus …

                     1   Rukayyabi Mohammad Iqbal,
                         Age 67 yrs., Occ. Housewife,
                         R/o Taha Nagar, Idgah Road, Faizpur,
                         Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.

                     2   Fatmabi Shaikh Kutuboddin,
                         Age 35 yrs., Occ. Housewife,
                            2                          908_FA_4413_2016



        R/o Taha Nagar, Idgah Road, Faizpur,
        Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.

  3     Yusuf Shaikh Kutuboddin,
        Age 15 yrs., Occ. Education,
        R/o Taha Nagar, Idgah Road, Faizpur,
        Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.

  4     Shamir Shaikh Kutuboddin,
        Age 13 yrs., Occ. Education,
        R/o Taha Nagar, Idgah Road, Faizpur,
        Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.

  5     Sabir Shaikh Kutuboddin,
        Age 11 yrs., Occ. Education,
        R/o Taha Nagar, Idgah Road, Faizpur,
        Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.

  6     The Manager,
        The United India Insurance Company Limited,
        Mansingh Market, 2nd Floor,
        Near Railway Station, Jalgaon,
        Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.

                                               … Respondents
                            ...
          Mr. B.K. Patil, Advocate for appellants
Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2
      Mr. S.R. Bagal, Advocate for respondent No.6
                            ...
                        WITH
         CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5790 OF 2021
                        WITH
         CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7752 OF 2024
                        WITH
         X-APPEAL (STAMP) NO.18081 OF 2024
                         ...
                                      3                            908_FA_4413_2016



                                      CORAM :     ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                      DATE :      03rd SEPTEMBER, 2026


JUDGMENT :



.           Present appeal has preferred against Judgment and Award dated

06.01.2016 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,

Jalgaon in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.450/2009. Learned Tribunal

has held respondent Nos.1 and 2 to be jointly and severally liable to pay

amount of Rs.6,20,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum towards

compensation to the claimants in the claim petition and has exonerated

respondent No.3 / Insurance Company. Original respondent Nos.1 and 2

have filed present appeal challenging Judgment and Award to the extent to

which respondent No.3 in claim petition i.e. Insurance Company is

exonerated from the liability. (Hereinafter, appellant No.1 will be referred as

“Tractor owner”, appellant No.2 will be referred as “Trolley owner”,

respondent Nos.1 to 5 will be referred as “claimants” and respondent No.6

will be referred as “Insurance Company”).


2           The claimants have also filed cross objection in order to seek

enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal.


3           It is the case of claimants that on 28.02.2009 deceased Shaikh
                                      4                           908_FA_4413_2016



Kutuboddin Mohd. Iqbal was travelling in a rickshaw bearing RTO

registration No.MH-19/AE 2657 from Yawal to Kingaon when he was hit by a

tractor attached with trolley bearing RTO registration No.MH-19/AN 450 and

MH-19/E 2436 respectively. It is stated that rickshaw in which the deceased

was travelling turned turtle and the deceased died on the spot of accident.

Claimant No.1 is mother, claimant No.2 is widow and claimant Nos.3 to 5 are

children of deceased. It is stated that deceased was working as mason with

one Shaikh Ismoddin Shaikh Ainoddin and was drawing salary of Rs.4,500/-

per month. It is further stated that he used to work as a Cook and used to

earn Rs.2,000/- per month by selling eatables on holidays. The deceased was

32 years old at the time of his demise. The claimants claimed compensation

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.


4           The Trolley involved in accident was insured at the relevant time

with respondent No.3/Insurance Company. The Tractor was not insured.


5           The owners of Tractor and Trolley filed common Written

Statement vide Exh.26 and contested the claim petition by placing blame for

the accident on the driver of the rickshaw. The insurance company filed its

Written Statement vide Exh.19 denying the claim. It is stated that the claim

against it was not maintainable since the rickshaw was not hit by the trolley.

It was contended that the accident had occurred on account of head on
                                       5                       908_FA_4413_2016



collision between the tractor and the rickshaw. Apart from this contention,

objection with respect to non joinder of the owner and driver of the auto

rickshaw was also raised. Objection was also raised with respect to non

joinder of driver of tractor.


6            Learned Tribunal, by referring to the evidence on record held

that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the driver of tractor.

Learned Tribunal computed the total amount of compensation payable @

Rs.6,20,000/- including the amount of No Fault Liability awarded under

Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The compensation is computed taking

the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.4,000/- per month. ¼ th deduction

is made towards personal expenses of the deceased and the multiplier of 16

is applied for computation of compensation against the head of Loss of

Financial Dependence.       In addition, an amount of Rs.44,000/- is paid

towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and consortium. Accordingly, total

compensation of Rs.6,20,000/- is awarded.     Claim for future prospects is

specifically rejected by learned Tribunal.


7            As regards the Insurance Company, learned Tribunal has

exonerated the Insurance Company from making payment of compensation

on the ground that the tractor, to which the trolley was attached, was not

insured.
                                       6                           908_FA_4413_2016



8           Mr. B.K. Patil, learned Advocate for appellants vehemently

argued that trolley when it is attached to a tractor, the tractor and trolley

both, constitute one single vehicle. He contends that even if the tractor is not

separately insured, the insurance company of the trolley cannot escape from

the liability to insure the claim. Learned Advocate has placed reliance on

Judgment of this Court in the case of United India Assurance Company

Limited vs. Bhismillabee w/o Sk. Noor and others in First Appeal No.1755 of

2011 decided at Aurangabad Bench on 10.05.2012, National Insurance

Company Limited vs. Smt. Chhaya Chandrakant Shegar in First Appeal

No.433 of 2016 decided at Principal Seat at Bombay on 10.05.2024,

Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of D. Lakshmana Murthy

s/o Doddahalappa and another vs. V. Rajesh s/o P. Venugopal and another in

M.F.A. No.418 of 1992 decided on 31.03.1998 and Judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance

Company Limited vs. Smt. Honnamma and others [AIR 2025 SC 2641].


9           Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, learned Advocate for claimants supports

the contention of the appellants/owners in this regard by placing reliance on

Judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited

vs. Ganesh Ramrao Nalkande and others in First Appeal No.631 of 2007

decided at Nagpur Bench on 11.01.2019, Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh
                                     7                         908_FA_4413_2016



High Court in the case of The New India Assurance Company Limited vs.

Nunna Veera Venkata Satyanarayan @ Sathibabu (died) and two others

[2012 ACJ 907] and The New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Mamidi

Mallamma and others [2002 ACJ 1461].


10          Per contra, learned Advocate for Insurance Company supports

the findings by learned Tribunal exonerating the insurance company by

placing reliance upon the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case

of The Legal Manager, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited vs.

Umadevi and others [2024:KHC-D:8757].


11          Learned Advocate Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar contends that the

amount of compensation is not properly computed by learned Tribunal. He

contends that learned Tribunal ought to have accepted the contention of the

claimants that the monthly income of deceased was Rs.6,500/-. He argues

that learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation towards future

prospects. Learned Advocate also states that compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-

ought to have been awarded towards loss of consortium to the widow,

mother and three children and in addition an amount of Rs.15,000/- each

should have been awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. He

argues that total compensation against conventional heads is erroneously

awarded at Rs.44,000/- only as against Rs.2,30,000/-.
                                       8                            908_FA_4413_2016



12           Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar contends that the amount of compensation

payable to the claimants can be enhanced in the appeal preferred by the

owners, however, the claimants have filed cross objection by way of abundant

caution. In support of his contention that amount of compensation can be

enhanced in the appeal preferred by the owner, reliance has placed upon

Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surekha wd/o

Rajendra Nakhate and others vs. Santosh Namdeo Jadhav and others [(2021)

16 SCC 467].


13           Learned Advocates for the vehicle owners and insurance

company opposed the request of enhancement of compensation.                  It is

contended that orders to the detriment of appellant cannot be passed in an

appeal filed by the appellant. It is contended that it was necessary for the

claimants to prefer a substantive appeal or cross objection in order to seek

enhancement in the amount of compensation. It is further argued that in the

cross objection is filed belatedly without any justifiable reason and, therefore,

the same should be dismissed by rejecting the application for condonation of

delay in filing cross-objection. It is also contended that in the event delay is

condoned and cross objection is entertained, the claimants should not be held

to be entitled to receive interest for the period of delay caused in filing cross

objection.
                                       9                           908_FA_4413_2016



14            In view of the rival submissions made above, following points

arise for consideration in the present appeal.


       i)      Whether the Insurance Company of Trolley can be held
       liable to pay compensation when the Tractor, to which it was
       attached, was not separately insured ?


       ii)     Whether amount of compensation computed by the
       learned Tribunal is proper ?


       iii)    Whether claimants are entitled to interest over the
       enhanced amount of compensation, if any, for the period of
       delay in filing cross objection ?


15            As to Point No.1 :


              As noticed above, learned Tribunal has exonerated the insurance

company of the trolley since the tractor was not insured. Learned Tribunal

has held that since the trolley was attached to a tractor, which was not

insured, the insurance company was entitled for exoneration from the

liability, since attaching the trolley to a tractor which is not insured amounts

to fundamental breach of the insurance policy.


16            The question that falls for consideration in the present appeal

with respect to liability of insurance company of a trolley to honour accident

claim even if the tractor to which it is attached is not insured has been
                                       10                          908_FA_4413_2016



considered by this Court in its earlier decisions in the cases of Bhismillabee

w/o Sk. Noor (supra), Smt. Chhaya Chandrakant Shegar (supra) and Ganesh

Ramrao Nalkande (supra). All these cases hold that even when a tractor is

not separately insured, the insurance company of the trolley cannot be

exonerated of its liability to honour the claim. It will also be appropriate to

refer Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), wherein it is held that in case where a

tractor insured is attached with a trolley which is not insured, the insurance

company of the tractor cannot be exonerated of the liability to honour the

accident claim.      In view of clear enunciation of law in the aforesaid

Judgments, it will not be possible to take a different view of the matter as

prayed by learned Advocate for the insurance company.           Point No.1 is,

therefore, answered holding that the insurance company of the trolley will be

liable to honour the claim, even if the tractor to which it was attached was

not insured.


17             As to Point No.2 :


               Learned Tribunal has held that the claimants had failed to lead

cogent and proper evidence to prove the income of the deceased. Learned

Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per

month and computed the compensation accordingly.             In view of five
                                        11                        908_FA_4413_2016



dependents, learned trial Court has made ¼ th deduction towards personal

expenses of the deceased and has applied the multiplier of 16, since the

deceased was 32 years old at the time of his demise.


18           Although the claimants failed to bring documentary evidence on

record to establish the exact income of the deceased, they have stated that he

was working as a Mason.         They have also named the employer of the

deceased in the evidence. The deceased has expired on 28.02.2009. He was

supporting a family of six persons including himself. Having regard to the

year in which the deceased expired and having regard to the general rate of

wages prevailing at the relevant time, it can reasonably be assumed that he

was earning around Rs.150/- per day. His monthly income should therefore

be taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. Learned Tribunal has rightly made ¼ th

deduction towards personal expenses and the multiplier of 16 was also

correctly applied. In view of the aforesaid, the total amount of compensation

payable to the claimants on account of loss of financial dependency works

out to Rs.6,48,000/-. The amount is computed as under :


  Sr. No.                        Particulars                     Amount
     01     Annual income of the deceased                    Rs.54,000/-
            (4500 x 12)
     02     ¼th deduction towards personal expenses          Rs.13,500/-
     03     Loss of annual financial dependence              Rs.40,500/-
     04     Total compensation against loss of income by     Rs.6,48,000/-
                                        12                        908_FA_4413_2016



           applying multiplier of 16



            On this amount of Rs.6,48,000/- compensation against future

prospects will have to be calculated.


19          In view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others [2017 AIR

(SC) 5157] in case of a deceased being a self employed person of working

against fixed salary, 40% amount is required to be paid towards loss of future

prospects when the age of deceased is less than 40 years.         The age of

deceased was 32 years on the date of his demise and as such the said amount

of future prospects works out to Rs.2,59,000/-.


20          Apart from this the claimants are also entitled to compensation

against conventional heads. In view of Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu

Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others [2018 (18) SCC 130] each claimant will

be entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. The total amount

payable towards consortium comes to Rs.2,00,000/-. Apart from the said

amount, Rs.30,000/-, Rs.15,000/- each, is required to be paid towards

funeral expenses and loss of estate.
                                           13                      908_FA_4413_2016



21           In view of the above, total compensation payable to the

claimants is computed as under :


  Sr. No.                         Particulars                     Amount
     01     Loss of financial dependence                      Rs.6,48,000/-
     02     Loss of future prospects                          Rs.2,59,200/-
     03     Loss of consortium                                Rs.2,00,000/-
     04     Funeral expenses                                  Rs.15,000/-
     05     Loss of estate                                    Rs.15,000/-
            Total compensation payable :                      Rs.11,37,200/-



22           As to Point No.3 :


             The owners of the tractor and trolley have filed Appeal in order

to assail the Judgment and Award by learned Tribunal. The claimants did not

file a substantive appeal challenging the Award in order to seek enhancement

in amount of compensation awarded. The claimants have, however, filed a

cross objection in order to seek enhancement amount of compensation.

There is a delay of around 3010 days in filing cross objection as per office

note dated 31.07.2024.


23           Learned Advocates for the vehicle owners and insurance

company contend that the delay should not be condoned, however, the

application for condonation of delay is allowed by separate order. Likewise,

it is contended in the alternative that at least interest should not be awarded
                                     14                          908_FA_4413_2016



for the period of delay.


24           Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, learned Advocate for claimants argues that

cross objection is filed by way of abundant caution. He contends that even in

the absence of a substantive appeal or cross objection, the Court is under an

obligation to award just, fair and reasonable compensation to the claimants.

He argues that appropriate enhancement in compensation awarded by

learned Tribunal can be granted even if the claimants do not prefer appeal.

Learned Advocate, therefore, contends that the claimants will be entitled to

receive the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, even for the

period of delay.


25           Here, it will be appropriate to refer two Judgments i.e. Surekha

wd/o Rajendra Nakhate and others vs. Santosh Namdeo Jadhav and others

[(2021) 16 SCC 467] and United India Assurance Company Limited vs.

Dagdu Gangaram Lokhande in First Appeal No.2630 of 2016 decided on

14.07.2026. In the light of aforesaid decisions, the contention of Mr. M.M.

Bhokarikar that just and fair compensation will have to be awarded to the

claimants even in absence of substantive appeal or cross objection at their

behest will have to be accepted. The said decisions categorically hold that

obligation to award just and fair compensation to claimants in motor accident

cases is imposed not only upon the Tribunal but also on this Court while
                                     15                            908_FA_4413_2016



entertaining appeal arising out of Judgment and Award passed by the

Tribunal even if the appeal is preferred by insurance company or vehicle

owner. In view of the aforesaid Judgments this Court is of the opinion that

compensation awarded to the claimants can be enhanced even in the absence

of appeal or cross objection by the claimants. The claimants, cross objectors

will be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest

even for the period of delay.    However, due to the delay, instead of 7%

interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal, interest on the enhanced

amount of compensation is awarded @ 6% per annum.


26          In view of the aforesaid, following order is passed.


                                   ORDER


1)          First Appeal and cross objection are partly allowed.


2)          The appellants and respondent No.6 i.e. original respondent

Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally held liable to pay enhanced compensation

of Rs.5,17,200/-, over and above compensation of Rs.6,20,000/- awarded by

the Member, Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Jalgaon in Motor Accident

Claim Petition No.450/2009.


3)          The appellants and respondent No.6 i.e. original respondent
                                     16                           908_FA_4413_2016



Nos.1 to 3 shall jointly and severally pay enhanced amount of compensation

of Rs.5,17,000/- to respondent Nos.1 to 5 / original claimants with interest

@ 6% per annum from 26.10.2009 i.e. the date of filing of Motor Accident

Claim Petition No.450/2009 till realisation of the said amount.


4)          Pending applications stand disposed of.




                                                 ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )
agd