Bombay High Court
SHARADABEN MAHENDRAKUMAR PANCHAL AND ANRversusSALAUDDIN AHMEDBHAI MANVA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The tribunal’s award was erroneous and is modified, enhancing the compensation to Rs. 22,31,710 with interest at 6% from the date of the petition.
Summary
The appellants, the widow and children of Mahendrakumar Bhikhabhai Panchal, appealed against a tribunal award following his death in a motor vehicle accident caused by a lorry driver. The dispute centered on the correct assessment of the deceased's annual income for compensation, as the tribunal had used an erroneous figure of Rs. 50,000 per annum, ignoring later income tax returns showing a higher income of Rs. 2,26,432 for the 1997-98 assessment year. The court also addressed the rate and commencement date of interest, finding that interest should be calculated at 6% from the date of the petition, not from the trial date. Relying on the documentary tax returns, the court recalculated the monthly income at Rs. 15,000 and accordingly enhanced the compensation award to Rs. 22,31,710. The appeal was allowed, the original award modified, and the respondents directed to pay the enhanced amount with interest.
Issues considered
- Determination of the correct annual and monthly income of the deceased for compensation purposes.
- Whether the tribunal erred in calculating interest at 7.5% from the trial date instead of 6% from the petition date.
- Appropriateness of the tribunal's original compensation award in light of the income evidence.
Subjects
- motor accident
- compensation
- income calculation
- interest rate
- insurance claim
- family members
- negligence
- motor vehicle accident
- death compensation
Judgment
21 Fa-177-2009.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 177 OF 2009
1. Sharadaben Mahendrakumar
Panchal, widow of the deceased
2. Shri Kirankumar Mahendrakumar Panchal
Son of the deceased
3. Miss Pravina Mahendrakumar Panchal
Daughter of the deceased
All R/at :- Room No. 6, Chawl No. 4,
Beretto Compound, Marve Road,
Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 064. ...Appellants
Vs.
1. Shri Salauddin Ahmedbhai Manva
Hindustan Transport, Sayra Road,
Modasa Sabarkanta, Gujarat
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Mumbai Regional Office No. I,
5th Floor, Statidum House,
Veer Nariman Road Churchgate,
Mumbai – 400 020. ...Respondents
*****
Mr. T. J. Mendon Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. H. G. Misar Advocate for the Respondent No. 2
*****
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
Digitally
DATE : 25th AUGUST 2026
signed by
SEEMA SEEMA
KSHITIJ
KSHITIJ YELKAR
Date:
YELKAR 2026.08.28
17:29:36
+0530
Seema 1/8
21 Fa-177-2009.doc
JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned Advocate Shri Mendon for the
Appellants/original Claimants and learned Advocate Shri Misar for the
Respondent No. 2-Insurer.
2. Deceased-Mahendrakumar Bhikhabhai Panchal was driving a
motor car on Mumbai-Ahmedabad Highway and when his vehicle
reached near Dhundalwadi on 24.09.1999, at that time, the motor
lorry came from wrong side and in the process of overtaking, motor
lorry dashed to the motor car. Mahendrakumar Panchal sustained
injuries and he died on the spot. The deceased was carrying business in
the name and style of Kiran Industries. His annual income was Rs.
1,30,000/-. Though in the claim petition, the Claimants have not
referred about return, during evidence the Claimants have produced
two income tax returns for the assessment year 1996-97, showing the
income as Rs. 46,000/- and for the assessment year 1997-98, showing
the income as Rs. 2,26,432/-. The learned Tribunal has arrived at
monthly income of the deceased to Rs. 50,000/- and subsequently
calculated the benefits.
Seema 2/8
21 Fa-177-2009.doc
3. This part of the findings is challenged by the Claimants by way
of this appeal. The Appellant No. 1- Sharadaben is widow. Whereas
Appellant No. 2- Kirankumar is son and Appellant No. 3-Pravina is
daughter. The Tribunal has given findings on the point of negligence
against the driver of the lorry. There was F.I.R. registered against the
lorry of driver. The Tribunal has also considered the spot panchnama.
Though the plea of the breach of the policy and absence of permit was
taken, the Insurance Company could not prove it. There is no
challenge about these findings.
4. So the issue is limited about exact amount of the income of the
deceased.
5. Both of them have invited my attention to the affidavit filed by
the Sharadaben being the wife of the deceased. She has referred about
yearly income of the deceased Rs. 1,30,000/-.
6. Mr. Misar has invited my attention to the answer given by her
during cross-examination. She has stated that her husband was earning
Rs. 10,000/- per month. He also emphasized that accident took place
on 24.09.1999 and the return for the assessment year 1999-00 was not
filed. Mr. Mendon has got an explanation to offer. It is for the reason
Seema 3/8
21 Fa-177-2009.doc
that Mahendrakumar was not alive when time for submitting the
return has arrived at as he died on 24.09.1999.
7. Be that as it may, the Tribunal has to consider what is evidence
on record. The Tribunal was having oral evidence of the widow on one
hand and two returns on the other hand. It is pertinent to note that
these returns were filed when the deceased was alive. The Tribunal is
bound by what is stated in the returns. So, the mere answer given by
the widow during her cross-examination cannot be construed to the
detriment of the Appellants, because there is documentary evidence
available to assist the Court to arrive at monthly income of the
deceased.
8. The Tribunal no doubt has considered the yearly income of Rs.
46,000/- for the year 1996-97. The tribunal has also recorded about
the assessment year 1997-98. However, the yearly income has not
referred by the Tribunal in that part of the judgment. On internal page
no. 9 of the judgment, the Tribunal further observed :-
“Due to death of her husband, the business was closed
down and they are not having any other source of
income”.
9. On this background, the annual income of the deceased was
Seema 4/8
21 Fa-177-2009.doc
considered by the Tribunal was Rs. 50,000/- p.a.. This is certainly
erroneous findings.
10. It is for the reason, the annual income for the next assessment
year 1997-98 was not considered. It is Rs. 2,26,432/-. If
simultaneously reading of these returns, it reveals that income of the
deceased has increased from the earlier assessment year.
11. It is admitted fact that even the widow has not said in her oral
evidence about the annual income of the deceased in next assessment
year i.e. 1999-2000. So Court has to do some guess work. In the return
for the assessment year 1996-97, the gross total income shown is Rs.
46,000/-. Whereas for the assessment year 1997-98, gross total income
shown is Rs. 2,26,432/- (income from the salary and income from the
capital gains). So if this gross total income of Rs. 2,26,432/- is
considered also for the next assessment year, then monthly income
comes to Rs. 18,869.33/-. However, in absence of the mention in the
affidavit of widow and in absence of return for next assessment year,
this Court records that monthly income of the deceased ought to have
been for Rs. 15,000/-.
12. One more interference is required is interest ought to have been
Seema 5/8
21 Fa-177-2009.doc
granted from date of petition and not from date of trial i.e. 20.06.2007.
The Tribunal has not given any reasoning for granting interest from
date of trial so to say delay on the part of Claimants. So it has to be
from date of the petition.
13. Learned Advocate Mr. Misar is right. The interest rate ought to
have been @ 6% instead of 7.5%.
14. In view of that the compensation recalculated is as follows:-
Name of the deceased Mahendrakumar Bhikhabhai Panchal
Age of deceased 39
Income considered Rs. 15000/-
Future Prospect Rs. 6000/-
(15,000 X 40%)
(Rs. 15000 + Rs. 6000) Rs. 21,000/-
Personal expenses (1/3) – Rs. 7,000/-
21,000 X 1/3=7000
Rs. 21000 – Rs 7000 = Rs. 14,000/-
Multiplier 18 Rs. 25,20,000/- A
Rs. 14000 X 12 X 15
Consortium for 3 Claimants Rs. 1,44,000/- B
(Rs. 48,000X 3)
Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- C
Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/- D
Total (A+B+C+D) Rs. 27,00,000/- E
(Less) Tribunal granted Rs. 4,68,290/- F
Enhancement amount Rs. 22,31,710/- G
(E-F)
Seema 6/8
21 Fa-177-2009.doc
15. Hence, following order :-
ORDER
(i) The First Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The award dated 28.01.2008 passed by Member MACT,
Mumbai in Application No. 4629 of 1999 is modified.
(iii) Appellants are entitled to enhanced amount subject to
deposit of deficit court fees.
(iv) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the
amount of Rs. 22,31,710/- jointly and severally within the
period of eight weeks from today alongwith interest at the
rate of 6 % from the date of petition till the payment.
(v) On deposit of the amount, the Tribunal is directed to
apportion 60% to Appellant No. 1, 20 % to Appellant No.
2 and 20% to Appellant No. 3.
(vi) The Tribunal to confirm whether the Appellant No. 2 and
Appellant No. 3 have attained majority and if they have not
attained the majority, the amount be paid to Appellant No.
1 being their natural guardian.
Seema 7/8
21 Fa-177-2009.doc
(vii) Record and proceedings be transferred on a priority basis in
any eventuality, within a period of four weeks from today.
16. With the above observations, the First Appeal is disposed of.
[S. M. MODAK, J.]
Seema 8/8
Checking your session…