Bombay High Court
PRAKASH DATTATRAY JAWHERIversusBALIRAM KATHOD MADHVI AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the compensation award is increased to Rs.16,62,774, with Rs.11,55,774 payable to the appellants plus interest.
Summary
The deceased, Pravin, was killed when a tempo owned by the insured driver collided with his motorcycle. His parents filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded Rs.5,07,000, excluding his part‑time earnings and using a multiplier of 10. The appellants contended that the Tribunal erred by rejecting the part‑time salary certificate and by applying the wrong multiplier, citing precedents that a 25‑year‑old deceased should attract a multiplier of 18 and that only completed years of age should be considered. The High Court examined the authenticity of the salary certificate, the relevance of the witness’s personal knowledge, and the applicable case law on multipliers and personal expense deductions. It held that the part‑time salary must be included, the multiplier should be 18, and the deduction for personal expenses should be one‑half, leading to a revised compensation of Rs.16,62,774, of which Rs.11,55,774 is payable with interest. The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's award was modified accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether the part‑time salary of the deceased should be considered in the compensation award.
- Whether the multiplier for future loss should be 18 instead of 10 (or 16) based on the deceased's age and precedent.
- Whether the deceased's age should be taken as the completed years (25) for multiplier calculation.
- Whether the deduction for personal expenses should be one‑half rather than one‑third.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the salary certificate due to the witness's lack of personal knowledge.
Subjects
- motor accident
- compensation
- part‑time salary
- multiplier
- personal expense deduction
- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
- insurance liability
- negligence
Judgment
907-FA-1970-2008.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SATISH FIRST APPEAL NO.1970 OF 2008
RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR
Digitally signed by
SATISH RAMCHANDRA
1. Shri.Prakash Dattatray Jawheri, ]
SANGAR Aged about 51 years, Occupation : Nil, ]
Date: 2026.08.21
19:11:59 +0530 (Father of the Deceased) ]
]
2. Smt.Pramila Prakash Jawheri, ]
Aged about 48 years, Mother of the ]
deceased, both are residing at Patkar ]
Niwas, Pada No.1, Near Hanuman ] ...Appellants
Temple, Vartak Nagar, Thane. ] (Original Applicants)
Versus
1. Shri.Baliram Kathod Madhvi, ]
Own House, Diva Koliwada, ]
Navi Mumbai, District : Thane. ] ...Opponent No.1
]
2. The United India Insurance Company ]
Ltd., Mumbai Regional Office No.I, ]
th
5 Floor, Stadium House, Veer Nariman ] ...Opponent No.2
Road, Churchgate, Mumbai : 400020. ] (Respondents)
====================================================
Mr.T.J.Mendon:- Advocate for Appellants/Original
Applicants.
Mr.Chandrakant Chavan:- Advocate for Respondent No.2–
Insurance Company.
====================================================
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 19th AUGUST 2026
Satish Sangar 1/8
907-FA-1970-2008.doc
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned Advocate Shri.Mendon for the Appellants/
Claimants and learned Advocate Shri.Chavan for Respondent No.2–
Insurer.
2. This is an Appeal for enhancement.
3. The deceased Pravin was driving a motorcycle and a pillion rider
is his friend Nilesh. One tempo owned by the Respondent No.1–
insured by Respondent No.2 came from the opposite direction in high
speed and went on wrong side and dashed the motorcycle. The
deceased fell on the ground and sustained head injuries. He died on
the spot. There is an offence registered against the driver of the tempo.
4. The Appellant No.1 is the father and the Appellant No.2 is the
mother of the deceased. They applied before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal–Thane (“Tribunal”). The owner of the tempo has not
contested the proceeding. It is only contested by the Insurer. The
allegations were denied. They have not examined any witness. The
Tribunal has directed the Insurer and Insured to pay a compensation of
Rs.5,07,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Seven Thousand) along with the
other benefits. This is inadequate is the case put forth by Mr.Mendon.
He made following submissions:-
Satish Sangar 2/8
907-FA-1970-2008.doc
(a) The Tribunal has committed an error in considering the part
time salary. The Tribunal was wrong in disbelieving the
salary certificate at Exhibit–30 only on wrong notion. The
witness Balaram Ganpat Deshmukh was not aware of the
contents.
(b) The Tribunal has committed wrong in considering the
multiplier of 10. It ought to have been 18 as per the
judgment in case of Smt.Sarla Verma and Ors. V/s. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Anr.1
(c) The deceased was born on 14th October 1978 and the date
of accident is 7th April 2004. Even though his age was 25
years and 5 months, his age ought to have been considered is
25 as per the observations in New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
V/s. Alpa Rajesh Shah and others2. The only completed age
has to be considered and if 25 years is considered, then
multiplier will be 18.
(d) The benefits as per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case ought to be
granted.
5. Learned Advocate Mr.Chavan has supported the judgment and
prayed that no interference is required. According to him, if the witness
Balaram Deshmukh is not aware about the contents of the certificate,
then the Tribunal has committed no wrong in not considering the part
time salary. He invited my attention to ground No.(e) from the memo
of Appeal wherein the Appellants have requested to consider the
multiplier of 16 and now he cannot pray for 18 as a multiplier.
1 AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3104
2 2014 ACJ 1747
Satish Sangar 3/8
907-FA-1970-2008.doc
6. I have read the observations in paragraph Nos.19 and 20. The
deceased was having income from two sources. They are as follows:-
(a) The salary income of Rs.6,227.35 (Rupees Six Thousand
Two Hundred Twenty Seven and Thirty Five Paisa) while
working in Dragger Forst Tolls Ltd.
(b) He was doing a part time job with Hawai Industries and
earning Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) per month.
The witness Balaram Deshmukh is examined.
7. The Tribunal has considered Rs.6,227.35 (Rupees Six Thousand
Two Hundred Twenty Seven and Thirty Five Paisa) from the salary.
While discarding the part time salary of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three
Thousand), the Tribunal has observed the witness is not having a
personal knowledge about the contents of the certificate at Exhibit–30 .
While differentiating the observations of one judgment, in paragraph
No.20, the learned Member observed the facts were different and
Balaram Deshmukh was not author of that certificate . The Tribunal
observed Balaram Deshmukh was not having personal knowledge
regarding the contents thereof. Whereas, according to Mr.Mendon, the
Respondents have not challenged that certificate being forged and
fabricated. I have read his evidence.
Satish Sangar 4/8
907-FA-1970-2008.doc
8. The deceased Pravin was working as part time worker in Hawai
Industries whereas, the witness Balaram Deshmukh was a production
supervisor. The timing of the deceased was from 6.00 p.m. to 9.30
p.m. One Vasudev is the owner of Hawai Industries. The pay
certificate is signed by the said Vasudev. The witness Balaram was
authorized by the owner to depose in the Court and the authority letter
is at Exhibit–31. During the course of the cross-examination, the
witness has answered that he is not aware anything about the
employees and their pay. He has answered that he is not having
personal knowledge about the contents of the salary certificate . Except
the pay certificate, he is not having any documentary evidence to show
that the deceased was their employee.
9. It is true, no suggestions were given that the certificate dated 1 st
June 2004 at Exhibit–30 is forged and fabricated. No suggestion is
given that the owner has not signed that certificate. In fact, the witness
Deshmukh was authorized by the owner to give evidence before the
Tribunal. When such authorization is there, the witness has produced
the certificate issued by the owner. It can very well be said that this has
come from the proper custody. When it has come from the proper
custody and there is no suggestion that it is forged and fabricated, the
Satish Sangar 5/8
907-FA-1970-2008.doc
Tribunal has committed an error in discarding it. The witness has
examined for producing the document. The witness may not be aware
about the contents of the documents. But when he was authorized to
produce it, the Tribunal ought to have accepted it. It is a settled law
that in any claim petition, strict proof is not required. So, the Tribunal
ought to have considered the part time salary to the tune of Rs.3,000/-
per month.
10. At the same time, the Tribunal ought to have considered the
multiplier as 18 instead of the multiplier as 10. It is for two reasons. As
per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case, if the age of the deceased is 25, it ought to
have been 18. The deceased has not completed the age of 26 years as
observed in Alpa Rajesh Shah’s case. The earlier age has to be
considered. Merely because in the memo of Appeal, the multiplier 16 is
mentioned, it does not mean that at the time of argument, the
Appellant cannot rely upon the observations of Supreme Court which
is the law of the land. The deceased was survived by two parents. So,
the deduction towards the personal expenses ought to have been one
half and not one third done by the Tribunal. That correction is
required. The benefits as per the subsequent judgment has to be
granted.
Satish Sangar 6/8
907-FA-1970-2008.doc
11. In view of that, the compensation is recalculated as follows:-
Sr.No. Heads Compensation Awarded/Stepped up
(i) Monthly Income:- Rs.9,227/-
(ii) Future Prospects:- Rs.4,613/-
(50% of the Income)
(iii) Deduction towards Rs.6,920/-
Personal Expenditure (1/2nd of Rs.13,840/-).
and Dependency:-
(iv) Multiplier:- Rs.14,94,774/-
(Rs.6,920/-x12x18).
(vi) Funeral Expenses:- Rs.18,000/-
(vii) Loss of Estate:- Rs.18,000/-
(viii) Loss of Consortium:- Rs.96,000/-
(Rs.48,000/- per head)
(a) Total Compensation Rs.16,62,774/-
Awarded:-
(b) Compensation awarded Rs.5,07,000/-
by the Tribunal:-
(c) Claim:- Rs.11,55,774/-
Amount to be paid Rs.11,55,774/- along with 7.5%
now:- interest.
12. In view of the above discussion, following order is passed:-
-: O R D E R :-
(a) The Appeal is allowed.
(b) The Award dated 21st June 2008 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.16,62,774/- (Rupees
Satish Sangar 7/8
907-FA-1970-2008.doc
Sixteen Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Seven Hundred
Seventy Four) (now the Appellants will be entitled to
get only Rs.11,55,774/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Fifty Five
Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Four). 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 7.5% per annum from the date of petition
till its realization. The Respondents are directed to pay
7.5% interest on the amount of Rs.11,55,774/- (Rupees
Eleven Lakh Fifty Five Thousand Seven Hundred
Seventy Four).
(iii) Additional Court Fee be paid.
13. In the light of the above observations, the Appeal stands
disposed of.
[S. M. MODAK, J.]
Satish Sangar 8/8
Checking your session…