Bombay High Court
VIPIN SURENDRA NARULA AND ANR.versusKUSLE AGENCIES AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the Tribunal's award is modified to a total compensation of Rs.76.20 lakh, with the respondents directed to pay Rs.20.04 lakh (plus interest) to the appellants.
Summary
The appellant, Mr. Vipin Narula, filed an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane, which had awarded compensation to him and his minor daughter for the death of his wife in a road accident caused by a lorry owned by Kusle Agencies and insured by New India Assurance. The Tribunal had found the lorry driver negligent and had fixed a multiplier of 12, a monthly income of Rs.39,735, and awarded Rs.56.16 lakh. The appellant contended that the multiplier should be 16, the salary figure should be based on a letter showing Rs.5,71,000 annual salary, and that loss of love and affection should not be awarded. The respondent argued that income tax deductions must be excluded from the monthly income calculation. The Court examined the salary evidence, applied the Sarla Verma principles, and recalculated the compensation, increasing the total to Rs.76.20 lakh but directing payment of the shortfall of Rs.20.04 lakh with interest. The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal award was modified accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal correctly calculated the compensation amount, including the appropriate multiplier, monthly income, and inclusion/exclusion of loss of love and affection.
- Whether income tax deductions should be excluded from the monthly income for compensation purposes.
Subjects
- motor accident
- compensation
- loss of consortium
- multiplier
- salary calculation
- insurance
- negligence
- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Judgment
905-FA-1568-2007.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1568 OF 2007
Digitally signed
by SATISH
RAMCHANDRA
SATISH SANGAR
RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR Date:
2026.08.21
19:30:51
+0530
1. Mr.Vipin Surendra Narula, ]
Age : 37 Years, ]
]
2. Miss.Himani Vipin Narula, ]
Age : 7 Years, Minor through her ]
guardian Mr.Vipin Surendra Narula, ]
Both residing at Balaji Garden, ]
Flat No.602, Building No.2, Sector–11, ] ...Appellants
Koparkharne, Navi Mumbai–400 709. ] (Original Claimants)
Versus
1. M/s Kusle Agencies, ]
Dalda Factory Compound, ]
Ring Road, Latur (Maharashtra) ] ...Opponent No.1
Bombay–400 009. ]
]
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ]
Sai Krupa Commercial Complex, ]
Gokhale Road, Naupada, Thane, ] ...Opponent No.2
District–Thane. ] (Respondents)
====================================================
Mr.Yash Dewal a/w Mr.Ashwin Advocates for Appellants/Original
Kulkarni h/f Mr.Kailas Dewal:- Claimants.
Mr.Devendranath S. Joshi:- Advocate for Respondent No.2–
Insurance Company.
====================================================
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 19th AUGUST 2026
Satish Sangar 1/7
905-FA-1568-2007.doc
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned Advocate Shri.Dewal for the Appellants/Original
Claimants and learned Advocate Shri.Joshi for the Respondent No.2–
Insurer.
2. The wife of the Appellant No.1 died in a vehicular accident on
8th November 2004. At that time, she was 33 years old and serving as
an Assistant Manager–HR in M/s.Reliance Industries Limited at
Patalganga. She was proceeding to attend her job. She was travelling in
auto rickshaw. The auto rickshaw stopped on left side of the road on
Sion–Panvel highway and she alighted from the auto rickshaw. At that
time, the driver of the lorry owned by the Respondent No.1 insured
with the Respondent No.2 was taking U–turn. It was below over
bridge of Vashi which goes to Panvel. He was rash and negligent and it
struck the auto rickshaw and deceased from behind. The impact was so
forceful that she was trapped below the lorry. She died on the spot.
3. There is an offence registered against the driver of the lorry. Her
husband and minor daughter have claimed compensation from the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal–Thane (“Tribunal”). It was contested
by both the Opponents. The negligence aspect is denied. The husband
gave evidence and also examined one Ashok Baliram Pabwat–Service
Satish Sangar 2/7
905-FA-1568-2007.doc
Manager of Reliance Industries. The owner has not examined any
witness. However, the insurer has examined the driver of the lorry.
4. After going through the police papers and the oral testimony, the
Tribunal has concluded about rash and negligent act on the part of the
driver of the lorry. This part of the finding is not challenged. So, the
only issue involved in this Appeal is “whether the Tribunal was right in
granting just compensation”.
5. Mr.Dewal, learned Advocate for the Appellants has made the
following submissions:-
(a) Even though apart from the salary certificate, there is a letter
dated 25th October 2004 showing the annual salary from 1 st
April 2004 to Rs.5,71,000/-. He is agitating this issue,
because except that letter, no other supporting documents
were produced.
(b) The multiplier granted by the Tribunal was 12 whereas, as
per the observations in Smt.Sarla Verma and Ors. V/s. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Anr.1, it ought to have been 16
considering the age of the deceased as 33. There is no
dispute by learned Advocate Shri.Joshi.
(c) He has produced calculation chart. According to him, as per
the observations in Smt.Sarla Verma (cited supra),
compensation can not be granted under the head “Loss of
1 AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3104
Satish Sangar 3/7
905-FA-1568-2007.doc
love and affection”. Towards “Loss of consortium”, rupees
forty eight thousand multiplied by two can be granted. As
observed in case of United India Insurance Company
Limited V/s. Satinder Kaur Alias Satwinder Kaur and
Others2, now there cannot be a compensation towards “Loss
of love and affection”.
6. Learned Advocate Shri.Joshi has invited my attention to the
salary certificate at Exhibit–39. It shows the following facts:-
(a) The amount due to the deceased for the month of October–
2004 comes to Rs.96,753.48. (It includes gross salary of
Rs.39,735.48 and arrears to the extent of Rs.57,018/-).
(b) As against this, the income tax deducted is Rs.22,064/-.
According to Mr.Joshi, this amount is deducted considering
the income to the tune of Rs.96,753/-.
(c) According to him, instead of Rs.22,064/- from the gross
salary of Rs.39,735.48, equivalent income tax ought to be
deducted and then Court can consider it as a salary income.
According to him, as per the observations in National
Insurance Company Limited V/s. Pranay Sethi 3 case, the
deductions towards the income tax has to be excluded while
considering the monthly income. Whereas, Mr.Dewal
submitted that in fact, the Tribunal ought to have considered
the letter showing the salary as mentioned above.
7. As said above, now in view of the observations in Smt.Sarla
2 (2021) 11 Supreme Court Cases 780
3 AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5157
Satish Sangar 4/7
905-FA-1568-2007.doc
Verma‘s case, the Appellants are certainly entitled for the benefits
granted as per the said judgment. When the Tribunal decided the
matter, Smt.Sarla Verma’s judgment was not delivered. Even though it
is true that the income tax has to be deducted as submitted by
Mr.Joshi, in a given set of facts, I am not inclined to accept that
submission. Ultimately, the Court has to arrive at a just compensation.
I am giving more weightage to the income shown in the table
Rs.39,000/- rather than Rs.39,700/- and not harping much on the
letter dated 25th October 2004. In view of that, I am rejecting the
submission of Mr.Joshi to that effect.
8. Accordingly, now the compensation is calculated as follows:-
Sr.No. Heads Compensation Awarded/Stepped
up
(i) Monthly Income:- Rs.39,000/-
(ii) Future Prospects:- Rs.19,500/-
(50% of the Income)
(iii) Deduction towards Rs.19,500
Personal Expenditure and (1/3rd of Rs.58,500/-).
Dependency:-
(iv) Total Income:- Rs.39,000/-
(2/3rd of Rs.39,000/-+Rs.19,500/-)
(v) Multiplier:- Rs.74,88,000/-
(Rs.39,000/-x12x16).
(vi) Funeral Expenses:- Rs.18,000/-
(vii) Loss of Estate:- Rs.18,000/-
Satish Sangar 5/7
905-FA-1568-2007.doc
(viii) Loss of Consortium:- Rs.96,000/-
(Rs.48,000/- per head)
(a) Total Compensation Rs.76,20,000/-
Awarded:-
(b) Compensation awarded Rs.56,16,000/-
by the Tribunal:-
(c) Claim:- Rs.20,04,000/-
Amount to be paid now:- Rs.20,04,000/- along with 7%
interest.
9. In view of the above discussion, following order is passed:-
-: O R D E R :-
(a) The Appeal is allowed.
(b) The Award dated 15th April 2006 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal–Thane is modified as follows:-
(i) The Respondents are directed to pay jointly and
severally a compensation of Rs.76,20,000/- (Rupees
Seventy Six Lakh Two Thousand) (now the Appellants
will be entitled to get only Rs.20,04,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Lakh Four Thousand). The Respondents to
pay the deficit on original amount awarded.
(ii) The Respondents are directed to pay this amount
within a period of 8 weeks. The Tribunal has granted
interest of 7% per annum from the date of Application
till its realization. The Respondents are directed to pay
7% interest on the amount of Rs.20,04,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Lakh Four Thousand).
(iii) Additional Court Fee be paid.
Satish Sangar 6/7
905-FA-1568-2007.doc
10. In the light of the above observations, the Appeal stands
disposed of.
[S. M. MODAK, J.]
Satish Sangar 7/7
Checking your session…