Bombay High Court
HIRAL MEHTA W/O. LATE SHRI DHAVAL MEHTAversusRAMCHANDRA SANTKUMAR IRPACHI AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court refused to stay the compensation order and ordered the insurer to deposit the amount, while it condoned the claimants' delay in filing their appeal.
Summary
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.65,15,888 as compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to the wife, children and parents of the deceased Dhaval Mehta. Reliance General Insurance Company appealed the award, seeking a stay of the judgment and alleging driver drunkenness and improper income assessment based on a single ITR. The High Court found no evidence of drunken driving and held the single ITR for AY 2017‑18 sufficient, rejecting the insurer's objections. Consequently, the court refused the stay and ordered the insurer to deposit the principal amount within six weeks, with interest to be determined later. The claimants' separate appeal for enhancement was delayed by 279 days, but the court condoned the delay and allowed the application. Both appeals were directed to be heard at the admission stage, and the tribunal was instructed to remit the record within four weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether a stay of the tribunal's compensation order should be granted pending the insurer's appeal
- Whether the insurer proved breach of policy terms or driver drunkenness
- Whether reliance on a single Income Tax Return for assessing the deceased's income is permissible
- Whether the 279‑day delay in filing the claimants' appeal can be condoned
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act — s. 44AD
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 166
Subjects
- motor accident claim
- compensation
- stay of decree
- condonation of delay
- Section 166
- insurance liability
- Income Tax assessment
- procedural law
Judgment
NISHA Digitally signed by NISHA
SANDEEP CHITNIS
SANDEEP Date: 2026.09.21 13:12:53
CHITNIS +0530 6&10-ia.11137.2024&6434.2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.11137 OF 2024
(FOR STAY)
IN
FAMILY APPEAL NO.1272 OF 2024
WITH
FAMILY APPEAL NO.1272 OF 2024
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Applicant/Appellant
(Orig. Respondent No.3)
Versus
Hiral Mehta Wd/o
Late Dhaval Mehta and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6434 OF 2026
(FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)
IN
FAMILY APPEAL (STAMP) NO.6933 OF 2025
WITH
FAMILY APPEAL (STAMP) NO.6933 OF 2025
Hiral Mehta w/o Late Dhaval Mehta and Ors. ...Applicants/Appellants
Versus
Ramchandra Santkumar Irpachi and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Aditya Ghadge i/b Mr. Akshay Kulkarni for the Applicant in
IA/11137/2024.
Mr. Atharva Jagtap i/b Ms. Jyoti Chavan for the Respondent Nos.1 to
5 in IA/11137/2024.
Mr. Atharva Jagtap with Ms. Srushti Mahadadalvar, Ms. Namratta
Pangam i/b Ms. Jyoti Chavan for the Applicants in IA/6434/2026.
N. S. Chitnis 1/7
6&10-ia.11137.2024&6434.2026.doc
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
1. Two First Appeals are listed before us, out of our
assignment, since one of the members of the Division Bench (Coram:
Sarang Kotwal, J.) before whom the assignment falls has recused
himself from hearing the First Appeals.
The judgment delivered by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Dadra & Nagar Haveli at Silvassa, in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No. 44 of 2018 is the subject matter of an appeal being First
Appeal No. 1272 of 2024, filed by Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited, praying for quashing and setting aside of the said
judgment. The claimants have filed an appeal being First Appeal
(Stamp) No. 6933 of 2025, seeking enhancement of the amount
awarded under the judgment dated 23rd January 2024.
N. S. Chitnis 2/7
6&10-ia.11137.2024&6434.2026.doc
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company in First Appeal No. 1272 of 2024, who has also taken out an
Interim Application for grant of stay, being Interim Application No.
11137 of 2024.
The impugned judgment has determined the claim for
compensation filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, by the wife of the deceased, Dhaval Mehta, his two minor
children and his parents. The deceased succumbed to injuries sustained
in an accident which took place on 6th August 2018, while he was
travelling on his Suzuki Access motorcycle and was dashed by a truck
which was insured with the Insurance Company. It is the claim of the
claimants that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent
manner and, on account of the dash, the deceased was thrown off the
vehicle and sustained grievous injuries. He succumbed to his injuries
while being taken in an ambulance.
N. S. Chitnis 3/7
6&10-ia.11137.2024&6434.2026.doc
3. In determining the issues as to whether it was proved that
the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the
truck and whether the claimants had proved that Dhaval Vinod Mehta
succumbed to the injuries, the Tribunal recorded findings in the
affirmative and, upon considering the well-settled principles governing
the grant of compensation, awarded compensation of Rs.65,15,888/-.
The Tribunal also framed the issue whether the Insurance Company
had proved breach of policy terms and conditions. The said issue was
answered in the negative. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the
contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the
driver was drunk, as, except for its mention in the FIR, nothing has
been brought on record to prove that the truck was being driven in a
drunken state.
Another point raised in the appeal by the Insurance
Company is that the Income Tax Return (ITR) taken into consideration
for determining the last income was only for the Assessment Year
2017–2018 and that the gross income could not have been computed
N. S. Chitnis 4/7
6&10-ia.11137.2024&6434.2026.doc
on the basis of a single ITR, and that at least three years' ITRs ought to
have been taken into consideration.
We find this objection also to be equally frivolous, as we
find that the accident took place in the year 2018 and the ITR was
published for the previous financial year 2017–2018, and the
presumptive income under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act was
set out as Rs.5,11,655/-. We find that the deceased was an employee in
Infinite Sum Inc., and we do not see that if he was a salaried employee,
there is a major variance in his income on a year-to-year basis.
4. In the wake of the aforesaid, we refuse to grant stay of the
impugned judgment at the request of the Insurance Company and
direct the Insurance Company to deposit the principal amount before
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dadra & Nagar Haveli at
Silvassa, within a period of six weeks from today. The entitlement to
interest shall be determined by us on the next date of hearing.
We also direct that the Tribunal shall permit the claimants
to withdraw 50% of the amount.
N. S. Chitnis 5/7
6&10-ia.11137.2024&6434.2026.doc
Interim Application No. 11137 of 2024 stands disposed of
accordingly.
5. As far as the appeal filed by the claimants, being First
Appeal (Stamp) No. 6933 of 2025, seeking enhancement is concerned,
Interim Application No. 6434 of 2026 seeks condonation of delay of
279 days caused in filing the said First Appeal.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the applicants and
perusal of the application, we find sufficient justification for the delay
and, hence, we condone the delay.
Interim Application No. 6434 of 2026 is allowed and is
accordingly disposed of.
6. With the consent of the parties, we direct that both the
First Appeals shall be heard finally at the stage of admission. We
accordingly direct the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dadra &
Nagar Haveli at Silvassa, to remit the Record and Proceedings in
N. S. Chitnis 6/7
6&10-ia.11137.2024&6434.2026.doc
Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 44 of 2018 within a period of four
weeks from today.
The Registry shall accordingly take steps for securing the
Record and Proceedings from the Tribunal.
List both the First Appeals on 19th October 2026.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
N. S. Chitnis 7/7
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.