ANJALI BHAGWAN BANSODE U/G ANASAHEB DAGDUJI BHALERAO AND OTHERSversusM.S.R.T.C. THR DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:42651


               J.02.fa.380.2015-1.odt                                             1/12


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   FIRST APPEAL NO.380 OF 2015

               1.     Ku. Anjali s/o Bhagwan Bansode,
                      Age – 04 years,
                      U/G appellant No.2

               2.     Anasaheb s/o Dagduji Bhalerao
                      age 66 years, Occu.Labour

               3.     Sau. Janabai w/o Anasaheb Bhalerao
                      age 58 years, Occu. Household

                      All R/o. Mahada, Shivajinagar,
                      Bhokardan Road, Jalna,
                      Tq. & Dist. Jalna
                                                                         ...APPELLANTS
                                                 VERSUS

               1.     Maharashtra State
                      Road Transport Corporation,
                      through Divisional Controller,
                      Divisional Office, MIDC area,
                      Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna

               2.     Bhagwan s/o Govind Bansode,
                      age 32 years, Occu. Private Service,
                      R/o. Solgavan, Tq. & Dist. Jalna
                                                                        ...RESPONDENTS
               _______________________________________________________

                      Ms S.D. More, Advocate for the appellants.
                      Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for respondent No.1.
                      Mr. V.P. Golewar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
               _______________________________________________________
J.02.fa.380.2015-1.odt                                             2/12


                          CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                          DATED : SEPTEMBER 15, 2026.

ORAL JUDGMENT :


              Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the

parties.


2.            The present appeal is filed in order to challenge judgment

and award dated 04/12/2014 passed by the learned Member, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalna in Motor Accident Claim Petition

Nos.183/2011 and 190/2011.


3.            The present appellants and respondent No.2 and appellant

No.1 had filed two separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which came to be registered as Motor Accident

Claim Petition Nos.183/2011 and 190/2011 respectively. The claims

were lodged on account of demise of late Sanjeevani Annasaheb

Bhalerao in a motor accident involving a vehicle owned by respondent

No.1/MSRTC. The respondent No.2 is father of appellant No.1. The

appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the maternal grandparents of appellant No.1.

The deceased is mother of appellant No.1, daughter of appellant Nos.2

and 3 and wife of the respondent No.2.


4.            The marriage between the deceased and respondent No.2

was solemnized on 05/05/2009. The deceased started residing at her
J.02.fa.380.2015-1.odt                                                3/12


parental house while she was pregnant. The date of birth of appellant

No.1 is 14/05/2010. The deceased and respondent No.2 were residing

separately since 20/10/2009. Whereas it is the contention of respondent

No.2 – husband that the deceased started residing at her parental house

since, customarily, delivery of first child has to be at parental home, the

contention of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 - parents of the deceased, is that

she had started residing at the parental house due to matrimonial

discord. The accident has occurred on 26/07/2011. On this date also the

deceased was residing with her parents and she met with an accident

while going to the place of work.



5.            The deceased was engaged as a Peon at Primary Health

Center. After the demise of the deceased, respondent No.2 – husband has

secured employment on compassionate grounds. It must also be stated

that the appellant No.1 - minor daughter of the deceased and respondent

No.2 is residing with her maternal grandparents i.e. the appellant Nos.2

and 3. The respondent No.2 – husband had filed a proceeding for

custody of appellant No.1 his daughter, which came to be registered as

Miscellaneous Civil Petition No.7/2012. The said application came to be

rejected vide judgment and order dated 12/02/2015. The appellant

Nos.2 and 3, the maternal grandparents of appellant No.1 have filed a

proceeding for guardianship of the appellant No.1, being Civil
J.02.fa.380.2015-1.odt                                                4/12


Miscellaneous Application No.14/2021, which is allowed vide judgment

and order dated 29/06/2024.



6.             As stated above, the parents of the deceased and her

husband filed two separate claim petitions. The minor daughter is

arrayed as one of the claimants in both these petitions. The learned

Tribunal has allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of

Rs.17,41,363/- inclusive of the amount of no fault liability. The learned

Tribunal has directed that the compensation amount of Rs.12,41,363/-

be paid to the minor daughter and Rs.5,00,000/- be paid to the

respondent No.2 – husband. The present appeal is filed by the parents of

the deceased challenging apportionment of the amount. Apart from this,

the appeal is amended in order to seek enhancement in the amount of

compensation on account of loss of consortium which is not awarded to

the parents.



7.             Mr. Bagul, learned Counsel for respondent - MSRTC argues

that as regards the dispute with respect to distribution of amount is inter

se between the appellants and respondent No.2, the respondent –

MSRTC is not concerned with the same. However, the learned Counsel

contends that the compensation awarded should not be enhanced in

view of delay caused in moving application for amendment of

memorandum of appeal. Learned Counsel also argues that the learned
J.02.fa.380.2015-1.odt                                              5/12


Tribunal has erroneously awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each

to respondent No.2 – husband towards loss of consortium and to the

appellant No.1 - daughter towards loss of care and guidance.



8.            Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 contends that the

parents of the deceased have not established that they were dependent

upon their deceased daughter, and therefore, their claim is rightly

rejected. Learned Counsel contends that since respondent No.2 lost his

wife, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is rightly awarded to the husband.

He draws attention to the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal

while dealing with issue of entitlement and apportionment of the

amount inter se between the minor daughter and the husband of the

deceased while rejecting the claim of the parents/appellant Nos.2 and 3.

He also draws attention to the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal

holding that the parents of the deceased are not entitled to receive any

compensation since they have received amount of Rs.11,36,616/-

disbursed under the postal life insurance scheme of the deceased. It is

recorded that in the cross-examination, the father of the deceased

admitted to have expended the said amount.



9.            On hearing the respective submissions, the following points

arise for my consideration :
J.02.fa.380.2015-1.odt                                              6/12


              (i)    Whether the apportionment of compensation as done

              by the learned Tribunal is just and proper?



              (ii)   Is the amount of compensation as determined by the

              learned Tribunal just and proper?



10.           Perusal of the evidence on record will demonstrate that the

deceased was residing with her parents from 20/10/2009. The reason

for staying away from the husband is not clear from the record. Both

parties have their own versions in this regard. Whereas the husband

contends that the wife had been to her paternal house for delivery of

first child, the parents of the deceased maintained that she had left the

matrimonial home due to discord with her husband. Be that as it may,

the fact that since 20/10/2009, the deceased is residing separate from

the respondent No.2 is not in dispute. It must also be stated that the

child was delivered on 14/05/2010 i.e. almost after a period of 7

months from separation of the deceased and her husband – respondent

No.2. The child was delivered while the deceased was staying with her

parents – appellant Nos.2 and 3. It is also duly established that on the

date of her accident, she was travelling to her place of work from the

residential house of her parents. The accident has occurred on

26/07/2011 i.e. after a period of around 14 months from the date of

birth of the appellant No.1 – child. It is also not in dispute that
J.02.fa.380.2015-1.odt                                                 7/12


application for custody filed by respondent No.2 is rejected and claim of

guardianship of appellant Nos.2 and 3 is allowed by the learned Civil

Court. Likewise, the appellant Nos.2 and 3 have also proved that all the

expenses towards performance of last rites of the deceased were

performed by them. In view of such evidence on record, the

preponderance of probabilities will indicate that the husband and wife

were residing separately only for the reason of delivery of the child. It is

also duly established that the maternal grandparents are taking care of

the minor child of the deceased.



11.           Apart from this, respondent No.2 - husband has already

secured employment on compassionate basis after the demise of his wife

i.e. from 10/12/2015. There is no evidence on record to suggest that

while the wife was residing separately from the husband she was

contributing towards the expenses of the family comprising of her and

her husband. The husband therefore cannot be said to be a dependent of

his wife in the peculiar facts of the present case. It must also be borne in

mind that the husband now has independent source of income in view of

compassionate appointment received by him after demise of his wife. As

against this, the evidence on record will clearly indicate that the

deceased was residing with her parents for a period of around 22

months prior to her demise. Therefore, the minor daughter and the
J.02.fa.380.2015-1.odt                                                 8/12


parents of the deceased will have to be treated as dependents of the

deceased. The husband cannot be treated as dependent.



12.           In view of the above, point No.1 framed in the appeal is

answered by holding that the entire amount of compensation payable on

account of demise of the deceased must be paid to the appellant No.1 -

minor daughter and appellant Nos. 2 and 3 - parents of the deceased.

The appellant Nos.2 and 3/parents will be entitled to total compensation

of Rs.2,00,000/- including the amount of Rs.40,000/- each payable to

them    towards     loss   of   consortium.   The   remaining   amount    of

compensation will be payable to appellant No.1 - daughter of the

deceased. The husband of the deceased will not be entitled to receive

any amount of compensation, except amount of Rs.40,000/- towards

loss of consortium.



13.           As regards, the claim for enhancement of compensation, by

now it is well settled that it is a statutory obligation of a Tribunal

entertaining claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 to award just and proper compensation even in the absence of

specific claim in that regard. It is also well settled that the duty to award

just and proper compensation is also imposed upon this Court while

entertaining appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The judgments have travelled this far that even in the absence of a
J.02.fa.380.2015-1.odt                                              9/12


substantive appeal or cross-objection by the claimants, enhancement of

compensation awarded can be granted in an appeal preferred by owner

or driver of the offending vehicle or the insurance company. In view of

the above legal position, the correct compensation payable is required to

be calculated.



14.           There is no dispute with respect to compensation of

Rs.13,78,512/- determined towards loss of earning. The grievance of the

appellants is with respect to component of future prospects which is

restricted to 10% of the amount of loss of earning. The deceased was 26

years old at the time of her demise. She was a permanent employee of

Government of Maharashtra. In view of the above, the compensation

payable towards loss of future prospects will be 50% of the amount of

loss of dependency. The amount of compensation payable towards loss of

future prospects will therefore be Rs.6,89,256/- (Rs.13,78,512 divided

by 2).



15.           Apart from this, amount of Rs.40,000/- each will be payable

to the daughter – appellant No.1, parents – appellant Nos.2 and 3 and

husband – respondent No.2 towards loss of consortium and in addition,

amount of Rs.30,000/- is payable towards loss of estate and funeral

expenses. The total amount of compensation payable on conventional

heads is accordingly worked out to Rs.1,90,000/-.
J.02.fa.380.2015-1.odt                                               10/12


16.           Accordingly, the total amount of compensation payable is

arrived at Rs.22,57,768/-.



17.           The appeal is thus partly allowed in the following terms :



              (i)     The amount of compensation of Rs.17,41,363/- as

              awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims

              Tribunal, Jalna vide judgment and award dated 04/12/2014

              in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.183/2011 and

              190/2011 is enhanced by an amount of Rs.5,16,405/-

              (Rs.22,57,768/- minus Rs.17,41,363/-).



              (ii)    Respondent No.1 - MSRTC will be liable to pay

              interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced

              amount of compensation of Rs.5,16,405/- from 26/09/2011

              i.e. date of filing of Motor Accident Claim Petition

              No.183/2019 till the date of realization of the said amount.


              (iii)   The amount of compensation will be distributed as

              under :

                      (a)   Rs.40,000/- to respondent No.2 – husband of

                            the deceased.
J.02.fa.380.2015-1.odt                                               11/12


                     (b)   Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- each to appellant

                           Nos.2 and 3 – parents of the deceased.

                     (c)   Balance    amount     of    compensation        of

                           Rs.20,17,768/-   to   the   appellant    No.1   –

                           daughter of the deceased.


              (iv)   Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the Fixed

              Deposit Receipt/s (FDR) for the amount of compensation

              awarded to appellant No.1 with the office of this Court on

              or before 15/10/2026. The Fixed Deposit Receipt/s (FDR)

              be sent to the office of learned Motor Accident Claims

              Tribunal, Jalna till further orders to be passed by the

              learned Tribunal regarding disbursement of the entire

              amount.



              (v)    The additional amount of compensation to be paid to

              appellant No.1 – daughter be invested in a fixed deposit

              with a nationalised bank. The total amount of compensation

              awarded to the appellant No.1 be disbursed to her on

              attaining 25 years of age with accrued interest. It will be

              open for the appellant No.1 after attaining majority or the

              appellant No.2 and/or 3 during her minority to make

              application for withdrawal of amount before the learned
J.02.fa.380.2015-1.odt                                                12/12


              MACT. Such application if made, be decided on its own

              merit by the learned MACT.



              (vi)   In the meantime, appellant Nos.1 to 3 will be entitled

              to withdraw amount of Rs.10,000/- per month for

              maintenance of appellant No.1.



              (vii) In the peculiar circumstances of the present case,

              parties shall bear their own costs.


18.           The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Pending civil

applications, if any, are disposed of.




                                                    (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)
*Gawade