Bombay High Court

BHAGYASHREE VIJAY JADHAV AND ORSversusMUKESH M. WARUDKAR AND ANR

Decided: 18 April 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN

Holding

The High Court held that the Tribunal’s award must be enhanced in accordance with the Pranay Sethi guidelines, resulting in a total compensation of Rs 69,58,500.

Summary

The appellants, the family of an engineer who died in a road accident on 6 December 2009, appealed against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award of Rs 39,70,000. The Tribunal had calculated compensation based on the deceased’s monthly salary of Rs 33,000, deducted one‑third for personal expenses, applied a multiplier of 15 and awarded nominal amounts for loss of consortium, estate and funeral expenses. The appellants contended that the Tribunal failed to apply the Supreme Court’s guidelines in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), which require a 50 % addition for future prospects, a one‑fourth deduction for personal expenses, and higher fixed amounts for consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Relying on the Pranay Sethi decision, the appellants recalculated the total compensation at Rs 69,58,500, seeking the differential of Rs 29,88,500 with interest. The Court accepted the submissions, held that the Tribunal’s award was deficient, and ordered the insurer to pay the enhanced amount plus interest. The appeal was consequently disposed in favour of the appellants.

Issues considered

Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal must incorporate the Supreme Court’s guidelines from National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) in calculating compensation.
Whether the deduction for personal expenses should be one‑fourth rather than one‑third.
Whether a 50 % addition for future prospects is applicable to a deceased aged 39 years.
Whether the quantum of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses should follow the fixed amounts prescribed in Pranay Sethi.

Subjects

motor accident compensation
future prospects
loss of dependency
loss of consortium
loss of estate
funeral expenses
enhancement of compensation
Supreme Court guidelines

Judgment

ppn 1 901.fa-955.12.doc

Digitally signed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by PRACHI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PRACHI PRANESH
PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR
NANDIWADEKAR
Date: 2026.04.18
15:00:48 +0530 FIRST APPEAL NO.955 OF 2012
Bhagyashree Vijay Jadhav & Ors. ….Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
V/s.
Mukesh M. Warudkar & Anr. .…Respondents
(Orig. Claimants)
----
Ms. Ketki Gokhale i/by Mr. A. M. Gokhale for the appellants.
None for respondent no.2.
----
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 18th April 2026
P.C. :

1. This appeal is of the year 2012. Respondent no.2, though served, is
not represented today. Since the appeal is of the year 2012, same is taken
up for final hearing.

2. This appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation awarded by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalyan (‘Tribunal’). The tribunal delivered
its judgment on 29 December 2011 and awarded Rs.39,70,000/- as
compensation.

3. The deceased was an engineer who passed away in an accident on 6
December 2009. The tribunal has considered his monthly salary of
Rs.33,000/- per month. The tribunal has reduced 1/3rd expenses from the
said figure. The tribunal thereafter, has applied a multiplier of 15 for
arriving at Rs.39,60,000/- The tribunal also awarded Rs. 5000 towards
loss of consortium, Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2000/- towards
funeral expenses. The aggregate amount awarded by the tribunal works out
to Rs.39,70,000/-.
ppn 2 901.fa-955.12.doc

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

5. Ms. Gokhale, learned counsel for the appellants submits that when
the tribunal decided the petition, decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Natitonal Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi 1 was
not available and therefore, the tribunal did not consider future prospects. I
find force in her submission since the decision in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra) was delivered in the year 2017 whereas the impugned order was
delivered in the year 2011. Therefore, in arriving compensation future
prospects of 50% should be considered since the age of the deceased was
39 years.

6. Insofar as deduction towards personal expenses are concerned, the
tribunal has considered 1/3rd without giving any reasons. There are five
dependents of the deceased who were also the applicants before the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal. Therefore, the deduction should be of 1/4th
towards personal expenses and not 1/3rd. This submission of Ms. Gokhale
is also accepted.

7. As per the decision of Pranay Sethi (supra), consortium should be
awarded @ Rs.48,000/- per person multiplied by number of dependents. In
this case, there are five dependents and therefore, the consortium should be
Rs.2,40,000/- as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

8. With respect to loss of estate and funeral expenses, the decisions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Pranay Sethi (supra), awards Rs.18,000/-
under each head whereas, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.2,500/- and
Rs.2,000/- respectively. Therefore to that extent, the tribunal has awarded
less.

9. The revised compensation after considering decision of the Hon’ble
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680
ppn 3 901.fa-955.12.doc

Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) is as under:-

Sr. Head Amount
No. (Rs.)
1. Monthly income 33,000/-
Deduct 1/4th towards personal expenses 8,250/-
Total 24,750/-
Add 50% towards future prospects 12,375
Total 37,125/-
After multiplying by 15 5,56,875/-

Loss of dependency x 12 66,82,500/-

2. Loss of Consortium (48,000 x 5) 2,40,000/-

3. Loss of Estate 18,000/-

4. Funeral expenses 18,000/-

Total Rs. 69,58,500/-

Less: Awarded by Tribunal Rs. 39,70,000/-

Enhanced Compensation Rs. 29,88,500/-

10. The revised compensation works out to Rs.69,58,500/- whereas, the
tribunal has awarded Rs.39,70,000/-. Therefore, the claimants are entitled
to an enhanced compensation of Rs.29,88,500/-.

11. The original claimants are entitled to Rs.69,58,500/- alongwith
interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing the original application till
realisation. The original claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount
deposited with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the insurance
ppn 4 901.fa-955.12.doc

company is directed to deposit the differential amount within 8 weeks from
today and consequently, the original claimants would be entitled to the
differential amount alongwith interest.

12. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

(JITENDRA JAIN, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…