Bombay High Court

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THR. ITS CORPORATE OFFICEversusMRS. MANGALA BHARAT PAWAR AND ORS.

Decided: 6 February 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE

Holding

The court held that the deduction for personal expenses must be one‑third of income and loss of consortium compensation must be awarded to all claimants, resulting in a reduced total compensation.

Summary

The appellant Reliance General Insurance Company appealed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award of Rs.27,15,398, alleging errors in the calculation of personal expenses of the deceased and loss of consortium. The MACT had awarded Rs.13,15,398 to Respondent No.1 and Rs.7,00,000 each to Respondents Nos.2 and 3, with interest. The court, after condoning the delay in filing the appeal, held that the deduction for personal expenses should be one‑third of the deceased's income (Rs.83,972) and that loss of consortium compensation of Rs.1,44,000 must be granted to all claimants. Consequently, the total compensation payable was reduced to Rs.25,31,594, and the appellant was directed to pay Rs.21,35,594 to the claimants with interest as previously ordered. The court also allowed the appellant to withdraw any excess amount deposited with the Tribunal and ordered the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000 to be transferred to the MACT. The interim application was disposed of and the appeal was concluded.

Issues considered

Whether the deduction for personal expenses of the deceased should be one‑third of income rather than one‑fourth.
Whether loss of consortium compensation should be awarded to all claimants under settled Supreme Court law.
Whether the MACT award should be modified accordingly.
Whether the delay in filing the first appeal can be condoned.

Subjects

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Compensation
Personal expenses deduction
Loss of consortium
Interest
Delay condonation
Insurance liability
Appeal

Judgment

Shivgan                                       61-FA(ST)-5094-2019.doc




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

               FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 5094 OF 2019
                                 WITH
               CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2119 OF 2019
                                 WITH
             INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 38384 OF 2025


Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
thr. Its Corporate office                  …Appellant
       Versus
Mrs. Mangala Bharat Pawar And Ors.         ..Respondents


Mr. Rahul Mehta (V/C), i/b KMC Legal Venture for the
      Appellant/Applicant     and     for    Respondent in
      IA/38384/2025.
Mr. S. R. Gupta, with L.N.Karna for the Respondents.


                     CORAM           DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
                     DATED:          6th FEBRUARY 2026
PC:-

               CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2119 OF 2019

1.        By consent, the delay condonation Application is

allowed, and the delay in preferring First Appeal (St.)

No.5094 of 2019 is condoned.




                                Page 1 of 5
                           th
                          6 February 2026
Shivgan                                            61-FA(ST)-5094-2019.doc



2.        The Interim Application stands disposed of.



3.        By way of the present First Appeal, the Appellant assails

the Judgment and Award dated 6th June 2018 passed by the

learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘MACT’), Mumbai, in

MACP No.2001 of 2012. By way of the impugned Judgment,

the claim petition filed by the Respondents (Original

Claimants) was allowed, and they were held entitled to

recover       compensation        of    Rs.27,15,398/-,     inclusive        of

compensation under no fault liability, together with interest

at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the

claim i.e 10th October 2012, till realization.



4.        Out of the said compensation, the MACT directed that

Respondent        No.1    shall        receive   Rs.13,15,398/-,      while

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were held entitled to compensation

of Rs.7,00,000/- each, together with proportionate interest.

Further directions necessary for granting the aforesaid reliefs

were also issued.




                                   Page 2 of 5
                              th
                             6 February 2026
Shivgan                                            61-FA(ST)-5094-2019.doc



5.        Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Original

Claimants i.e. Respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that the

deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased was

calculated by the MACT at one-fourth instead of one-third.

Hence, the said figure requires rectification and is now

computed        at   Rs.83,972/-.        He     further    submits      that

compensation towards loss of consortium of three Claimants

was calculated at Rs.48,000/- only in favour of Respondent

No.1. However, in view of the settled law laid down by the

Supreme Court, the said amount is required to be awarded to

all the Claimants. Accordingly, the total compensation under

this head works out to Rs.1,44,000/-. Except for the aforesaid

two irregularities in computation, the award passed by the

MACT is not assailed.



6.        Considering the settled legal position and the factual

matrix of the case, I am of the view that the deduction

towards personal expenses of the deceased ought to be one-




                                  Page 3 of 5
                             th
                            6 February 2026
Shivgan                                                  61-FA(ST)-5094-2019.doc



third of the income and that compensation for loss of

consortium must be awarded vis-à-vis all the Claimants.



7.        Considering the aforesaid deduction towards personal

expenses       of   the    deceased           at    Rs.83,972/-        and     the

compensation towards loss of consortium at Rs.1,44,000/-,

the total compensation payable to the Claimants would be

Rs.25,31,594/- instead of the amount directed by the

Tribunal.



8.        Accordingly,    the     Appellant         is     directed     to    pay

compensation of Rs.21,35,594/- to the Claimants, together

with interest thereon at the rate directed by the MACT.



9.        Mr. Rahul Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the

Appellant, submits that the said amount has already been

deposited with the Tribunal. The Appellant is permitted to

withdraw the excess amount, if any, deposited with the

Tribunal. All other directions issued by the Tribunal shall

remain unchanged.



                                      Page 4 of 5
                                 th
                                6 February 2026
Shivgan                                              61-FA(ST)-5094-2019.doc



10.       The statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- made by the

Appellant shall be transferred to the MACT. The MACT is

requested to consider the application, if any, made on behalf

of the Appellant, and learned counsel for the Appellant is

permitted to withdraw the same in accordance with the Rules.



11.       Court-fees, if any, shall be refunded in accordance with

the Rules.



12.         The First Appeal is accordingly disposed of along with

the Interim Application therein.


                                                 (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)

          Digitally
          signed by
          SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH    SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN   Date:
          2026.02.09
          19:41:27
          +0530




                                   Page 5 of 5
                              th
                             6 February 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…