SUNANDABAI GULABRAO SANER PATIL AND ANRversusRAJENDRA BHASKARRAO VABHANDIK AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:6196
                                                                      FA-1964-2011.odt




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            FIRST APPEAL NO. 1964 OF 2011

          1.    Smt. Sunandabai Gulabrao Saner (Patil)
                Age: 47 years, Occ: Household Work,

          2.    Ganesh Gulabrao Saner
                Age: 22 years, Occ: Education

                Both R/o. Walkheda, Taluka: Shindkheda,
                Dist. Dhule                                   ...Appellants

                Versus

          1.    Shri. Rajendra Bhaskarrao Vabhandik
                Age: Adult, Occ: Maruti Van Owner,
                R/o Mahalaxmi Colony, At: Shirpur,
                Taluka: Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

          2.    New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
                Branch Office, Dhule,
                Yashovallabh Shopping Complex,
                Near Municipal Corporation,
                At: Dhule, District: Dhule                    ...Respondents

                                              ***
           • Mr. A. B. Gatne, Advocate for the Appellants
           • Mr. V. R. Mundada, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2
                                              ***

                                     CORAM         : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J
                                     RESERVED ON   : FEBRUARY 06, 2026
                                     PRONOUNCED ON : FEBRUARY 12, 2026

          JUDGMENT :

          1.          In this Appeal, there is challenge by original Claimants to

          the judgment and award dated 19.04.2011 passed by learned MACT,

          Dhule in MACP No. 973/2009.

                                         PAGE 1 OF 9
                                                             FA-1964-2011.odt




2.         Present Appellants – Original Claimants set up above Claim

Petition by invoking section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against

owner/driver of the car and its insurer i.e. present Respondents

contending that, on 14.07.2009 at about 05.00 p.m., while Deceased

Gulabrao Saner was proceeding on motorcycle bearing no. MH-18-S-

9421 from village Nardana to Village Betawad, when he reached in the

vicinity of village Varud, a car bearing registration no. MH-18-W-803

came in opposite direction and gave dash to the motorcycle. As a result

of said accident, deceased died on the spot. It is contended by claimants

that, the deceased was serving as a teacher in Vivekanand Vidhyalaya,

Khalane and was receiving salary of Rs.29,747/- p.m and thereby set up

a claim of award of compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.


3.         The above claim petition was contested by present

Respondent No. 2. Owner /driver did not contest. Insurance company, by

filing written statement at Exhibit 13, denied all contentions of

claimants and claimed that, deceased himself was rash and negligent in

driving vehicle and was responsible for the accident.


           After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence

adduced by claimants, learned Tribunal recorded a finding that,

claimants proved that, there was rash and negligent driving on the part

of offending vehicle insured by Respondent No.2 and considering the

                               PAGE 2 OF 9
                                                             FA-1964-2011.odt




same as a base, awarded total compensation to the tune of

Rs.14,32,756/- with 9% interest p.a.


            Being dissatisfied by the above judgment and award,

Claimants have challenged the said award by filing instant Appeal.

Appeal.


4.          Learned Counsel for Appellants, after apprising this Court

about above factual position and filing of above claim on account of

demise Gulabrao in road traffic accident dated 14.07.2009 by vehicle of

Respondent No. 1 insured by Respondent No. 2, would submit that,

present Appeal is confined only to grant of meager compensation and

not granting fair and just compensation. He pointed out that, learned

Tribunal erred for applying split multiplier, which, in view of recent

judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Preetha Krishnan and Others

vs. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors , 2025 SCC OnLine

2365, is not permissible. He specifically invited attention of this Court

to observations of Tribunal in paragraph 29, which according to him,

deals with aspect of split multiplier.


            On visiting the above referred judgment, there is force and

submission to the above extent. In the above judgment, the Hon’ble

Apex Court has deprecated the practice of applying split multiplier.



                                 PAGE 3 OF 9
                                                              FA-1964-2011.odt




5.          He would elaborate that, admittedly, deceased died in road

traffic accident dated 14.07.2009 and at that time, deceased, who was 53

years of age, was in permanent employment as a teacher. That, he was

due to retire at the age of 58 to 60 and, therefore, had almost half a

decade to serve, earn and lend support to his family. He pointed out

that, here, it is a matter of record that, insurance company has not led

any independent evidence from their side. That, in fact, claim of present

Appellants in the Tribunal has virtually gone unchallenged and findings

of Tribunal with regards to rash and negligence are also in consonance

with the evidence and record and learned Counsel justifies the same.

However, while computing compensation, it is his submission that, it

was substantiated before Tribunal that, the deceased was entitled for 6 th

pay commission and even learned Tribunal took judicial note that, 6 th

pay commission was liable to be made applicable and he justifies the

observations to that extent. However, he expresses concern over the

manner of calculating the compensation i.e. in deducting 20% of the

income tax in absence of any objection or evidence from the insurance

company. He pointed out that, the salary received by deceased ought to

have been presumed to be after deduction of income tax and on this

count, he seeks reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, more

particularly, paragraphs 23 to 25 in the case of Vimal Kanwar and

Others vs. Kisore Dan and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 476.

                               PAGE 4 OF 9
                                                               FA-1964-2011.odt




6.          It is also his further contention that, learned Tribunal failed

to grant future prospects, which, in fact, claimants was entitled to

receive in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National

Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others , AIR 2017 SC

5157. He emphasized that, here deceased died at the age of 53 and was

undisputedly a permanent employee and, therefore, facts of the case

warranted grant of future prospects even though deceased was above 50

years of age but the same has not been considered.


7.          It is also his contention that, even there is failure to

consider appropriate consortium, which ought to have been granted as

per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance

Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130

as well as judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs.

Aruna Haumant Yadav and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 24.


8.          He also urges for enhancing compensation under the heads

of loss of estate, funeral expenses as meager compensation has been

granted under both the heads. He finally placed on record above rulings

as well as calculation pursis.


9.          In answer to above, learned Counsel for Insurance Company

would justify the judgment and award passed by Tribunal and prays to


                                 PAGE 5 OF 9
                                                              FA-1964-2011.odt




dismiss the Appeal for want of merits. According to him, learned

Tribunal has rightly refused to give compensation under the head of

future prospects as deceased was on the verge of retirement and there

were no future prospects to consider the same.


10.         In the light of above submissions, here, undisputedly, before

the Tribunal it was demonstrated that, deceased was 53 years of age

and was working as a teacher. The headmaster of the institution has

stepped into witness box who deposed about the salary income and also

deposed about entitlement of 6th pay benefits to deceased. The papers

placed before this Court by learned Counsel for Appellants in the form

of notification of finance department, which makes it abundantly clear

that, benefits of 6th pay are made retrospectively effective from January,

2006. Therefore, there is no reason to refuse the same, it was rightly

even considered by Tribunal.


11.         As pointed out, as regards to necessary deductions under

income tax is concerned, salary certificate is on record. Here learned

Tribunal, without any objections raised by insurance company,

proceeded to deduct 20% of the salary by way of income tax. In the light

of above cited judgment in Vimal (supra), even such steps taken by

Tribunal amounts to overreaching in absence of any specific objection by

insurance company before the Tribunal and it ought to have been

                               PAGE 6 OF 9
                                                              FA-1964-2011.odt




presumed that salary is inclusive of necessary deductions i.e. tax at

source. There is no counter evidence or objection by insurance company

to this extent and, therefore, as claimed, only deductions under

professional tax is liable to be deducted. Therefore, even findings of

Tribunal to that extent are required to be interfered with.


12.         As pointed out, deceased was around 53 years of age.

Tribunal has discussed the entitlement of future prospects in paragraph

26 of its judgment and has quoted the observations of Hon’ble Apex

court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport

Corporation & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. However, as pointed out,

there is a rider provided in the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case

of Pranay Sethi (supra) that, in exceptional circumstances, future

prospects can be granted above the age of 50 also. Here, as stated above,

deceased met unfortunate death in road traffic accident at the age of 53

and he had plenty of service to his credit. Therefore, same can be

considered as special circumstance to award future prospects in this

case. Useful reference also can be made to this extent to the judgment of

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prany Sethi (supra), more

particularly, paragraph 60, which reads as under:


         60. The controversy does not end here. The question still
         remains whether there should be no addition where the
         age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Sarla Verma

                                PAGE 7 OF 9
                                                              FA-1964-2011.odt




           thinks it appropriate not to add any amount and the
           same has been approved in Reshma Kumari. Judicial
           notice can be taken of the fact that salary does not
           remain the same. When a person is in a permanent job,
           there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the
           other. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no
           addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept.
           We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of
           15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years
           and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in
           case of self- employed or person on fixed salary, the
           addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60
           years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that
           there can be consistency in the approach by the
           tribunals and the courts.


13.          For above reasons, there is no reason not to grant future

prospects though deceased was shown to be 53 years of age and

apparently had almost a half a decade service to render. Therefore,

necessary addition of 15% towards future prospects, as urged, be

granted.


14.          In view of the aforesaid discussion, claimants succeed in

getting enhanced compensation as determined under:

 Sr.                          Heads                        Amount (Rs.)
 No.
 1.    Income                                                  29,90,152/-
       Rs.29,747/- per month x 12 =Rs.3,56,964/-
       (-) 200 x 12 towards professional Tax= 2,400/-
       (-)1/3rd income towards personal expenses
       = 3,54,564 (-) 1,18,188= 2,36,376
       (+) 15% towards future prospects = Rs.35,456/-
       Rs.2,71,832 x 11 multiplier


                                 PAGE 8 OF 9
                                                                  FA-1964-2011.odt




  2.     Consortium                                                    96,000/-
         Rs.48,000/- x 2
  3.     Funeral expenses and loss of estate                           30,000/-
  4.     Total compensation to be paid                          Rs. 31,16,152/-
  5.     Compensation awarded by Tribunal                       Rs. 14,32,756/-
  6.     Total enhanced compensation                            Rs. 16,83,396/-


15.            In the result, following order is passed:

                                   ORDER

   (a)      First Appeal is allowed with proportionate costs.

   (b)      Impugned judgment and award dated 19.04.2011 passed
            by learned MACT, Dhule in MACP No. 973/2009 is
            modified.

   (c)      Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of
            compensation in this Court so as to enable claimants to
            withdraw the same.

   (d)      Respondents to pay compensation, as determined above,
            to claimants within 12 weeks from today along with
            interest @ 9% per annum from the date of registration of
            claim petition till its realization.

   (e)      Modified award be prepared accordingly.

   (f)      Claimants to pay court fees on enhanced compensation
            as per rules.

   (g)      On deposit of the amount, appellants/claimants are
            permitted to withdraw the same.

   (h)      Rest of the judgment and award of Tribunal to remain
            intact.



                                                  (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Umesh




                                    PAGE 9 OF 9