Bombay High Court

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDversusMR.ISHWARA SHANKAR KAMBLE AND ORS.

Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: M M SATHAYE

Holding

The Court held that the insurer is liable but the Tribunal’s award was excessive; compensation should be reduced to Rs.10,17,200 with interest at 9% per annum.

Summary

The case arose from a motor accident on 7 January 2015 in which a 19‑year‑old student, Abhijit, riding pillion on a motorcycle was killed after a collision with a Tata truck/dumper insured by United India Insurance. The deceased’s parents filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking Rs.15,00,000 compensation. The insurer appealed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award of Rs.14,71,000, arguing that the truck driver was not negligent and that the income and future‑prospects calculations were inflated. The Court examined the oral evidence, finding that the truck driver was at fault and that the claimant’s income should be assessed at Rs.6,000 per month with a 40% future‑prospects factor and a multiplier of 18. Accordingly, the Court reduced the compensation to Rs.10,17,200 and ordered interest at 9% per annum, partially allowing the insurer’s appeal and rejecting the cross‑objections.

Issues considered

Whether the insurer is liable for the accident despite the claim of contributory negligence by the motorcycle driver.
What quantum of compensation is appropriate under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, including income, multiplier, future prospects, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.
Whether the multiplier should be 18 or 19 for a claimant aged 15‑20.
What rate of interest is applicable to the compensation award.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 — s. 166

Subjects

motor accident
Section 166 Motor Vehicle Act
insurance liability
contributory negligence
compensation calculation
future prospects
multiplier
loss of consortium
interest rate

Judgment

FA-88-2024 J C3.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL NO.88 OF 2024
Digitally signed
ALONGWITH
by SHAILAJA
SHAILAJA SHRIKANT CROSS OBJECTION [STAMP] NO.7528 OF 2022
SHRIKANT HALKUDE
HALKUDE Date: IN
2026.03.25
19:40:37 +0530 FIRST APPEAL NO.88 OF 2024

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ]
Pune Regional Office, ]
Through, ]
Its Kolhapur Divisional office 2, ]
“Matoshri Plaza, office No.301, ]
3rd Floor, Venus Corner, ] … Appellant / Insu. Co.
Shahupuri, Kolhapur ]
Versus
1. Mr. Ishwara Shankar Kamble ]
Age: 48, Occ: Service, ]
2. Mrs. Shantabai Ishwara Kamble ]
Age: - 40 Occ: Household, ]
Both R/O:- Ninai Parale, Tal:- Shahuwadi, ]
...Respondents /
Dist: Kolhapur. ]
Cross Objectionists /Claimants
3. Mr. Santosh Ananda Patil ]
Age:- 30, Occ:- Nil, ]
R/o:- Perid, Tal:- Shahuwadi, ]
Dist:- Kolhapur. ] Respondent / Owner
4. Mr. Ravindra Balkrushna Sapate ]
Age:- 30, Occ:- Driver, ]
R/o. Burud Galli, Malkapur, ]
Tal:- Shahuwadi, Dist. Kolhapur ] Respondent/ Driver

***
Mr. Amol Gatne (through V.C.), for the Appellant.

Mr. Pradeep D. Dalvi, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
***

Shailaja 1
FA-88-2024 J C3.doc

CORAM : M. M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 24th MARCH, 2026.

JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned Counsel for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. Admit. Learned Counsel for contesting Respondent Nos.1 and 2
(Claimants) waives service. Considering narrow conspectus of the subject-
matter dispute, taken up for final disposal immediately.

3. The Appellant is Insurance Company and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are
original claimants in Motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP) No.156 of 2015
filed in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Kolhapur (‘MACT’ for short).
Respondent No.3 is owner of the offending vehicle (Tata Truck/Dumper, MH-
09 / CU-2727) and Respondent No.4 is Driver of the said vehicle. Admittedly,
the offending vehicle was insured with the Appellant Insurance Company.

4. Deceased Abhijit was riding pillion with his friend Mr. Tanaji More on
Motorcycle (MH-09 / DB-8165) on 07.01.2015, at about 6.45 a.m., when the
Motorcycle reached at Village Yelur near Jatharwadi, offending vehicle came
from the opposite side and dashed motorcycle, in which, deceased Abhijit fell
down on the road and sustained fatal head injury. Deceased was shifted to
the Primary Health Centre, Malkapur and then to a private Hospital, who
ultimately succumbed to accidental injuries.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are parents of the deceased, filed claim
application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’ for

Shailaja 2
FA-88-2024 J C3.doc

short) contending that accident has taken place due to rash and negligent
driving by offending vehicle. That the Police registered criminal case against
Respondent No.4 - Driver of the offending vehicle. That at the time of death,
deceased Abhijit was healthy young boy of 19 years who was college going
student. That deceased Abhijit was having ambition to become Engineer.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with
interest.

6. The owner and Driver of the offending vehicle filed written statement
denying the case of rash and negligent driving. They inter alia contended that
when Respondent No.4 was driving the offending vehicle at a moderate
speed from the correct side of the road, the Motorcycle suddenly came in
high speed and its driver could not control on a turn and slipped and dashed
the offending vehicle. That because of fault of motorcycle driver, accident has
taken place.

7. The Appellant-Insurance Company filed written statement contending
inter alia that Driver of offending vehicle was not rash and negligent. That
Driver of Motorcycle Mr. Tanaji More was driving in rash and negligent
manner without holding effective licence of Bajaj Pulsur Motorcycle at high
speed who could not control the vehicle and as such Motorcycle slipped on
road and the accident took place. Injuries as well as monetary claim was
denied.

8. Respondent No.1, father of deceased examined himself in support of
claim. The Insurance Company examined Driver of offending vehicle Mr.
Ravindra Sapate and also examined Driver of the Motorcycle Mr. Tanaji More.

Shailaja 3
FA-88-2024 J C3.doc

9. Learned Member, MACT, Kolhapur by impugned judgment and Award
dated 22.08.2017, allowed the Petition partly, thereby directing the
Appellant-Insurance Company jointly and severally with owner and driver of
the offending vehicle, to pay Rs.14,71,000/- inclusive of No Fault Liability
with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of Claim Petition till realization.

SUBMISSIONS
10. Learned counsel Mr. Gatne appearing for the Insurance Company
submitted that the deceased was 19 year old, 12 th standard commerce
student and, therefore, the notional income of Rs.12,000/- accepted by the
Tribunal is on higher side. He submitted that 100% future prospects cannot
be applied and at the most, 40% future prospects can be applied. He
submitted that instead of Rs.1,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards loss
of love, care and affection and 50,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.
25,000/- towards funeral expenses, at the most Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium for both parents alongwith other heads can be awarded following
law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi
and Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Nanu Ram [2018 (8) SCJ 338].

11. Inviting attention of the Court to cross-examination of the Motorcycle
Driver, it is submitted that the said driver has stated in examination-in-chief
that the accident did not take place due to fault of truck Driver. Inviting
attention to the evidence of Driver of the offending vehicle, he submitted that
the said driver has also stated that Motorcycle slipped first and then dashed
against the offending vehicle. It is submitted that therefore, this is a clear
case of negligence of only Motorcycle driver and not that of the offending
vehicle. He submitted that if the fault lies only with the driver of the

Shailaja 4
FA-88-2024 J C3.doc

Motorcycle then, for that, liability cannot be fastened upon the insured
vehicle and its Insurance Company (Appellant). He relied on the following
judgments in support of his case about income of a student :
(i) Arvind Kumar Mishra Versus New India Assurance Company
Limited and Another [(2010) 10 SCC 254]
(ii) Radhakrishna and Another Versus Gokul and Others [(2013) 16
SCC 585]
(iii) Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali and Another Versus Shyam
Kishore Murmu and Another [(2022) 1 SCC 317]
(iv) Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Sushil @
Sachin and Others [Civil Appeal No. 3495 of 2025 Supreme
Court Order dated 11.08.2025]

12. On the other hand, Mr. Dalvi, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1
and 2 - claimants submitted that Respondent Nos.1and 2 have filed Cross
Objection seeking enhancement of the amount. He submitted that notional
income needs to be increased to Rs. 12,000/- per month. He submitted that
the Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 18 and it should have been 19
as per paragraph 19 of Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another, [2009 (6) SCC 121]. He submitted that future
prospects of 40% must be applied. He submitted that therefore accepting his
contentions as above, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.24,62,400/-
and therefore, considering amount already granted, enhancement amount
should be Rs.11,66,000/-. He further submits that additional Rs.95,000/-
must be added for loss of estate and loss of consortium as per Pranay Sethi
(supra) read with Magma GIC (supra) and therefore, total amount
enhancement must be Rs.12,61,400/-. He also relied on the following
judgments in support of his case;

Shailaja 5
FA-88-2024 J C3.doc

[i] National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and
Ors. (supra)
[ii] Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Nanu Ram alias
Chuhru Ram and others (supra)
[iii] Parminder Singh Versus Honey Goyal and Ors, [AIR Online 2025
SC 168];
[iv] Joginder Singh & Anr. Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company, [2019 ACJ 2783]

13. Mr. Gatne in rejoinder made submissions distinguishing the cases of
Joginder Singh (supra) and Parminder Singh (supra) on facts.

14. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the record.

15. First, let us consider the argument about contributory negligence.

16. It is true that the Insurance Company has examined drivers of both, the
offending vehicle (Truck/Dumper) as well as the motorcycle. The driver of
the motorcycle, Mr. Tanaji Vishnu More, though has stated in his
examination-in-chief that the accident did not take place due to the fault of
the truck driver, he has admitted in cross-examination that the motorcycle
was on an ascending road and was traveling at a speed of 30 to 40 km per
hour. He further admitted that the offending truck, which was coming from a
descending road, was at a high speed and that the accident occurred due to
the fault of the offending truck/dumper.

17. Oral evidence of the offending truck driver, Ravindra Balkrushna
Sapate, shows that he has admitted in his cross-examination that he was

Shailaja 6
FA-88-2024 J C3.doc

holding a valid driving license and that the fitness and permit of the
offending vehicle/dumper were valid at the time of the accident. He has also
admitted that the accident took place on a turning road. Though he has
stated that the motorcycle skidded and then dashed into the dumper, he has
also admitted that the police registered a case against him for rash and
negligent driving, and that the FIR has not been challenged on the ground of
being a false complaint. He has further admitted that, although he gave
intimation to the police, he did not state that the motorcycle had first skidded
and then dashed into the dumper. He has also admitted that while taking a
right turn, a vehicle must first be moved to the left side and then turned to
the right, and that if this is not done, a vehicle coming from the opposite
direction may collide with the wheel of the dumper. He has further admitted
that the offending vehicle was on a descending road while the motorcycle
was coming from an ascending road.

18. In the teeth of above admissions, a solitary statement in the
examination-in-chief that the accident did not take place due to the fault of
the truck-driver cannot be given such weight as to hold contributory
negligence on the part of the motorcycle driver. Overall reading of the
aforesaid oral evidence, in my view, does not establish that the accident took
place due to the fault of the motorcycle driver, as argued by the learned
counsel for the Insurance Company.

19. So far as the arguments of both the sides regarding income of deceased
is concerned, it is necessary to note that in Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra)
relied on by Insurance Company, deceased was 25 years old and annual
income was taken at 60,000/- per annum which makes monthly income
Rs.5,000/- per month. In Kurvan Ansari (supra), deceased was 7 years old

Shailaja 7
FA-88-2024 J C3.doc

and annual income is held as Rs. 25,000/-. In Reliance General Insurance
Company Vs. Sushil @ Sachin (supra), injured was 17 years old student who
suffered amputation of right leg, and monthly income of minimum wage at
Rs. 5,860/- has been accepted by High Court and confirmed by Supreme
Court.

20. In Joginder Singh (supra) facts were peculiar, that the deceased in that
case, was 20 years old girl taking actual training for becoming an air-hostess
and therefore, since the deceased was in the course of becoming an air-
hostess, income of Rs.15,000/- per month was accepted. In the present case,
there is no such specific evidence available about a particular course that the
deceased had undertaken.

21. In Parminder Singh (supra) relied on by the Claimants, it was a case of
injury of quadriplegia which resulted into 100% permanent disability. In that
case, victim/claimant was learning to become veterinary doctor and was a
sportsman having technical qualification. In these circumstances, monthly
income of Rs. 7,500/- has been accepted.

22. In the present case, there is no such evidence available about any
particular course being undertaken by deceased Abhijit. Therefore both these
case-law will not advance case of the claimant. In the present case, deceased
Abhijit was 19 years old 12th standard student. There is no documentary
evidence of income. There is no evidence to accept monthly income of
Rs.12,000/-. Therefore accepting the highest amount of Rs. 5,860/- per
month from the judgments relied upon by the Insurance company it can be
safely rounded off to Rs. 6,000/- per month.

Shailaja 8
FA-88-2024 J C3.doc

23. In the present case, applying law laid down in Insurance Company Vs.
Pranay Sethi (supra), since deceased was less than 40 years of age and there
is no evidence about job, much less permanent job or business, maximum
40% future prospects can be applied. 100% future prospects as applied by the
Tribunal cannot be sustained.

24. Also considering paragraph 42 (SCC version) of Sarla Verma (supra),
for the age group of 15 to 20, multiplier of 18 as applied by the Tribunal is
correct and it cannot be considered as 19 as argued by learned counsel for
the claimant. Applying the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma
GIC Vs. Nanu Ram (supra), other heads such as loss of estate, loss of
consortium etc. must be awarded. Since the claimants are parents, both are
entitled to compensation under loss of consortium.

25. Considering that the impugned award is of August 2017, interest
granted by the Tribunal @ 7% p.a. is on lower side and interest @ 9% p.a.
will be just and proper. It is increased accordingly.

26. In a latest judgment of Hasina Yasmin Vs. National Insurance Co. (Sp.
Leave Petition (C) No. 27285 of 2025 Order dated 17.12.2025), in paragraph
Nos. 6 to 8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred to a Larger Bench, the issue
about relevance of date of accident, date of award and its effect on periodical
increase of 10% every three years, as ordered under Pranay Sethi (supra).

27. Considering that accident has taken place in January, 2015 prior to
October 2017 when figures are fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra) and further
considering that interest is going to be awarded from date of application, in

Shailaja 9
FA-88-2024 J C3.doc

my considered view, 10% increase every three year after 2017 can not be
applied in the facts of the present case. However, figures fixed in Pranay Sethi
(supra) of October 2017 are applicable.

28. Hence, Appeal of Insurance company is partly allowed and Cross
Objections are rejected by granting compensation of Rs. 10,17,200/- by
adopting following calculation. Said amount shall be payable to Respondent
Nos. 1 & 2 (Claimants) with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of Claim
Petition till realization.
Monthly Income = Rs.6,000/-
Annual Income (x12) = Rs.72,000/-
Multiplier (x18) = Rs. 12,96,000/-
Add: 40% future prospects = Rs. 12,96,000/-
+ Rs. 5,18,400/-
= Rs.18,14,400/-
Less 1/2 deduction for personal expenses = Rs.9,07,200/-
Total income = (A) Rs. 9,07,200/-
Funeral Expenses = (B) Rs.15,000/-
Loss of Estate = (C) Rs.15,000/-
Consortium for parents (x2) Rs.40,000 x 2 =
(D) Rs.80,000/-
Total compensation held payable = Rs.10,17,200/-
(A+B+C+D)
Awarded by Tribunal = Rs.14,71,000/-
Reduced amount = Rs.4,53,800/-

29. The Statutory Deposit of Rs. 25,000/- in this Court (Registry) is
directed to be transferred to concerned Tribunal, alongwith accrued interest,
if any. The concerned Tribunal is directed to refund remaining amount to
Appellant Insurance Company, after adjusting above amount with interest
payable to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Claimants).

Shailaja 10
FA-88-2024 J C3.doc

30. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of
this order.

[ M. M. SATHAYE, J. ]

Shailaja 11

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…