Bombay High Court
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusSMT. UMADEVI RAMESHWAR SINGH AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
The appeal is dismissed and the Tribunal's award is upheld.
Summary
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd appealed a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 46,25,000 granted to the claimants, alleging that the Tribunal failed to consider the deceased's contributory negligence and miscalculated compensation by using an incorrect income figure and an excessive percentage for future prospects. The appellant argued that the deceased's last annual income was Rs. 2,78,123 and that, as a self‑employed person, only 40% of income should be allowed for future prospects, citing the National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi judgment. The Tribunal had used an average income of Rs. 20,000 per month and applied a 50% future prospects factor. The Court found no evidence of negligence by the deceased and held that the Tribunal should have used the actual last income but concluded that the award was otherwise proper. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s award, dismissed the appeal, and ordered the case to be sent back to the Tribunal for finality.
Issues considered
- Whether the deceased was negligent in causing the accident and whether contributory negligence should affect the award
- Whether the Tribunal correctly computed compensation by using the appropriate income figure of the deceased
- Whether the percentage of income allotted for future prospects should be 40% instead of 50% for a self‑employed deceased
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173
Subjects
- Motor Vehicles Act
- negligence
- contributory negligence
- compensation
- future prospects
- self‑employed
- income calculation
- quantum of damages
Judgment
76-FA-828-2023++.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 828 OF 2023
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3424 OF 2018
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 828 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2030 OF 2020
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 828 OF 2023
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd …Appellant
Versus
Umadevi Rameshwar Singh & Ors …Respondents
Mr Shrikant Dange, for the Appellant.
Mr TJ Mendon, for the Respondents.
SHEPHALI
SANJAY
MORMARE CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
Digitally signed
by SHEPHALI DATED: 13TH JANUARY 2026
SANJAY
MORMARE
Date: 2026.01.14
PC:-
18:19:59 +0530
1. By consent of both sides heard finally at the stage of
Admission.
2. This Appeal is under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988
takes exception to the Judgment and Award dated 18 th August
2017, passed in MACP No. 99 of 2016, whereby the Tribunal has
accepted the case of the Claimant and granted compensation of
Page 1 of 4
th
13 January 2026
76-FA-828-2023++.DOC
Rs. 46,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum
from the date of filing of the Petition till realisation of the amount.
3. The Appeal is filed by the Insurer on the ground that the
Tribunal has failed to take into consideration negligence in the
occurrence of the accident, so also, on the grant of excessive
compensation without taking into consideration the income of
the deceased and adding incorrect percentage of future
prospects.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the issue
of negligence was very well raised before the Tribunal and on
the basis of evidence on the record, the contributory
negligence be held. On the point of quantum it is his
submission that the tribunal has erred in granting the future
prospects to the extent of 50% instead of 40% in case
applicable to a self-employed person as head in the
Judgement of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi.1
5. Learned counsel for the Claimant though supported the
impugned Judgment and Award, he argued that the Tribunal
ought not to have accepted the average income of
Rs.20,000/- but would have taken into consideration the last
income earned by the deceased.
1 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC).
Page 2 of 4
th
13 January 2026
76-FA-828-2023++.DOC
6. There is no dispute about the fact that the Insurer has
raised plea with regard to the negligence on the part of the
deceased in occurrence of the accident. However, there was
no evidence to substantiate the plea. As far as other issues
with regard to the involvement of the offending vehicle in the
accident and death of the deceased owning to the injuries
caused therein is not in dispute.
7. The Claimants led evidence in the form of Income Tax
returns for the Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 to
prove the income of the deceased. The last income drawn by
the deceased is Rs.2,78,123/- per annum. The Tribunal,
therefore, ought to have considered the said income for the
purpose of computation of compensation. The monthly
income, therefore, taken into consideration is Rs. 23,000/- in
stead of Rs. 20,000/-.
8. The Tribunal further erred in giving 50% of income
towards future prospects ignoring the the fact that the receive
was self-employed person. By following the Judgment in case
of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the Claimants would be entitled to
receive 40% of income towards future prospects.
9. Having regard to the aforestated facts, this Court finds
no reason to add any amount of compensation or to deduct
anything therefrom.
Page 3 of 4
th
13 January 2026
76-FA-828-2023++.DOC
10. Hence, the impugned Judgments is upheld and the
Appeal is dismissed.
11. In view of the above, I pass the following order:
ORDER
(a) The Appeal is dismissed.
(b) R & P be sent back to the Tribunal.
12. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, pending Applications, if
any, stand disposed of.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
Page 4 of 4
th
13 January 2026
Checking your session…