Bombay High Court
RUKAYYABI MOHAMMAD IQBAL AND ORSversusGULAB MOTIRAM BADGUJAR AND ORS
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the trolley insurer is liable despite the tractor’s lack of insurance, the compensation must be enhanced to Rs.11,37,200 and interest at 6% per annum is payable from the date of filing.
Summary
The claimants, the family of a deceased mason, sought compensation under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act after the deceased was killed when a rickshaw collided with a tractor towing a trolley. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal held the tractor and trolley owners jointly liable for Rs.6,20,000 and exonerated the trolley insurer because the tractor was not insured. On appeal, the High Court examined whether the insurer could escape liability, the adequacy of the compensation calculation, and the claimants' entitlement to interest on any enhanced award. Relying on earlier decisions, the Court held that the trolley insurer remains liable even if the attached tractor lacks insurance. It also found that the compensation should be increased to Rs.11,37,200, including amounts for loss of future prospects, consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, and that interest at 6% per annum is payable from the date of filing despite the delay in the cross‑objection.
Issues considered
- Whether the insurance company of a trolley is liable to pay compensation when the tractor to which it is attached is not separately insured.
- Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was properly computed.
- Whether claimants are entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay in filing the cross‑objection.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 140, 166
Subjects
- motor accident
- compensation
- insurance liability
- trolley
- tractor
- Motor Vehicles Act
- interest
- cross objection
- enhanced compensation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41441
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
Checking your session…