Bombay High Court
NAITONAL INSURANCE CO LTDversusPARUL RAGHU RAJ GANIGA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the Tribunal’s award stands and the statutory deposit is to be transferred to the Tribunal.
Summary
The National Insurance Co. appealed a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order that awarded Rs.9,97,500 plus interest to the claimants. The insurer challenged the award on the ground that the deceased’s name was inconsistently recorded in the FIR as “Raghu Raj Shetty” versus “Raghu Raj Ganiga Mahalinga” in subsequent police and post‑mortem documents, arguing that identity was not proved. The Court observed that the FIR mistake was rectified in later official records, and the consistent name in the charge‑sheet, post‑mortem, and income‑tax returns established the deceased’s identity, rendering the insurer’s objection untenable. The insurer also contended that the Tribunal should have used a notional income of Rs.70,000 rather than Rs.115,000, but the Court held the income‑tax records to be credible evidence. Consequently, the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000 with interest was ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal, and the appeal was dismissed, resulting in the disposal of the civil application.
Issues considered
- Whether a discrepancy in the deceased’s name between the FIR and later police/post‑mortem documents defeats the claim under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
- Whether the Tribunal should have calculated notional income at Rs.70,000 instead of Rs.115,000 as per income‑tax records.
- Whether the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000 with interest should be transferred to the Tribunal and withdrawn by the claimants.
Subjects
- motor accident insurance
- identity of deceased
- FIR discrepancy
- notional income
- statutory deposit
- appeal dismissed
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:17259
Sayyed 910-FA.384.2012.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.384 OF 2012
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.868 OF 2012
National Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Parul Raghu Raj Ganiga & Ors. ...Respondents
_____________________________________________________
Mr. Amol Gatne for the Appellant/Applicant.
None for the Respondents.
_____________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATE : 10 APRIL 2026
ORDER:
1. By consent, since narrow issue is involved, the appeal is taken
up for hearing at the admission stage itself.
2. This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the
order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane (MACT, Thane)
dated 30 September 2011, whereby the Tribunal awarded Rs.9,97,500/-
alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum.
3. The main grievance of the insurance company is with respect
to the identity of the deceased based on some discrepancy in the name
of the deceased recorded in FIR and other documents.
4. It is the submission of the insurance company that in the FIR,
the name of the deceased is mentioned as “Raghu Raj Shetty”, whereas
in the application filed with the Tribunal, the name of the deceased is
mentioned as “Raghu Raj Ganiga Mahalinga”. It is, therefore, the
submission of the insurance company that in the absence of identity
1 of 3
Sayyed 910-FA.384.2012.doc
being proved, the Tribunal could not have awarded any amount.
5. I have heard Mr. Gatne, learned counsel for the appellant-
insurance company.
6. Though in the FIR, the name of the deceased is mentioned as
“Raghu Raj Shetty” but in the charge-sheet, the police authorities have
mentioned the name as “Raghu Raj Ganiga Mahalinga”. The
postmortem report also records the name as “Raghu Raj Ganiga
Mahalinga”. The ITR records of the deceased also records the name as
“Raghu Raj Ganiga Mahalinga”. All other documents have referred the
deceased as “Raghu Raj Ganiga Mahalinga”. In my view, if there is some
mistake on the part of the police authorities in mentioning an incorrect
name in the FIR, but subsequently mentioning the correct name in the
subsequent records prepared by the police authorities, the original
claimants cannot be non-suited on account of mistake committed by
another authority which too was rectified subsequently. All the
documents correctly refers the name as “Raghu Raj Ganiga Mahalinga”.
Therefore, this contention of the insurance company cannot be accepted
for reversal of the impugned order.
7. It is also important to note as recorded by detailed order of this
Court on 4 May 2017 that above issue was not even raised before the
Tribunal.
8. The next submission of the insurance company that the
Tribunal should have considered notional income at Rs.70,000/- and
not Rs.1,15,000/- as per income tax record cannot be accepted. The
income disclosed with the revenue authorities is more credible
evidence. Therefore, when the original claimants have led such an
evidence, the submission made to take notional income cannot be
considered.
2 of 3
Sayyed 910-FA.384.2012.doc
9. The statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- to be transferred to
MACT, Thane alongwith interest and the parties are at liberty to
withdraw the same. The original claimants are now entitled to the
decretal amount alongwith interest and the same is allowed to be
withdrawn.
10. Therefore, for all the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, civil application does not survive and is disposed of.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/04/2026 18:06:16 3 of 3
Checking your session…