Bombay High Court
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusSMT. UMADEVI RAMESHWAR SINGH AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's award, finding no basis to alter the compensation amount.
Summary
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd appealed a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs.46,25,000 granted to the dependents of a deceased road accident victim, invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurer contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the deceased's contributory negligence and had miscalculated compensation by using an average monthly income of Rs.20,000 instead of the actual last drawn income of Rs.23,000, and by applying a 50% factor for future prospects rather than the 40% applicable to a self‑employed person as per precedent. The respondents argued that the Tribunal should have used the actual last income but otherwise supported the award. The Court found no evidence of negligence on the part of the deceased and held that the Tribunal had correctly applied the principles, noting that the income figure and future‑prospects percentage were appropriate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal's award upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the deceased was contributorily negligent in the accident.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in computing compensation by using an average income of Rs.20,000 per month instead of the actual last income of Rs.23,000 per month.
- Whether the Tribunal should have applied a 50% factor for future prospects rather than the 40% factor applicable to a self‑employed person.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act — s. 173
Subjects
- Motor Vehicles Act
- negligence
- contributory negligence
- compensation
- future prospects
- self‑employed
- insurance claim
- quantum of damages
Judgment
76-FA-828-2023++.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 828 OF 2023
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3424 OF 2018
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 828 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2030 OF 2020
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 828 OF 2023
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd …Appellant
Versus
Umadevi Rameshwar Singh & Ors …Respondents
Mr Shrikant Dange, for the Appellant.
Mr TJ Mendon, for the Respondents.
SHEPHALI
SANJAY
MORMARE CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
Digitally signed
by SHEPHALI DATED: 13TH JANUARY 2026
SANJAY
MORMARE
Date: 2026.01.14
PC:-
18:19:59 +0530
1. By consent of both sides heard finally at the stage of
Admission.
2. This Appeal is under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988
takes exception to the Judgment and Award dated 18 th August
2017, passed in MACP No. 99 of 2016, whereby the Tribunal has
accepted the case of the Claimant and granted compensation of
Page 1 of 4
th
13 January 2026
76-FA-828-2023++.DOC
Rs. 46,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum
from the date of filing of the Petition till realisation of the amount.
3. The Appeal is filed by the Insurer on the ground that the
Tribunal has failed to take into consideration negligence in the
occurrence of the accident, so also, on the grant of excessive
compensation without taking into consideration the income of
the deceased and adding incorrect percentage of future
prospects.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the issue
of negligence was very well raised before the Tribunal and on
the basis of evidence on the record, the contributory
negligence be held. On the point of quantum it is his
submission that the tribunal has erred in granting the future
prospects to the extent of 50% instead of 40% in case
applicable to a self-employed person as head in the
Judgement of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi.1
5. Learned counsel for the Claimant though supported the
impugned Judgment and Award, he argued that the Tribunal
ought not to have accepted the average income of
Rs.20,000/- but would have taken into consideration the last
income earned by the deceased.
1 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC).
Page 2 of 4
th
13 January 2026
76-FA-828-2023++.DOC
6. There is no dispute about the fact that the Insurer has
raised plea with regard to the negligence on the part of the
deceased in occurrence of the accident. However, there was
no evidence to substantiate the plea. As far as other issues
with regard to the involvement of the offending vehicle in the
accident and death of the deceased owning to the injuries
caused therein is not in dispute.
7. The Claimants led evidence in the form of Income Tax
returns for the Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 to
prove the income of the deceased. The last income drawn by
the deceased is Rs.2,78,123/- per annum. The Tribunal,
therefore, ought to have considered the said income for the
purpose of computation of compensation. The monthly
income, therefore, taken into consideration is Rs. 23,000/- in
stead of Rs. 20,000/-.
8. The Tribunal further erred in giving 50% of income
towards future prospects ignoring the the fact that the receive
was self-employed person. By following the Judgment in case
of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the Claimants would be entitled to
receive 40% of income towards future prospects.
9. Having regard to the aforestated facts, this Court finds
no reason to add any amount of compensation or to deduct
anything therefrom.
Page 3 of 4
th
13 January 2026
76-FA-828-2023++.DOC
10. Hence, the impugned Judgments is upheld and the
Appeal is dismissed.
11. In view of the above, I pass the following order:
ORDER
(a) The Appeal is dismissed.
(b) R & P be sent back to the Tribunal.
12. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, pending Applications, if
any, stand disposed of.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
Page 4 of 4
th
13 January 2026
Checking your session…