Bombay High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Nagpur … vs Shailaja Wd/O Swapnil Gandewar And … on 2 July, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:7209
J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 1/22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 651 OF 2018
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Nagpur Divisional Office-I, through
the Divisional Manager, Incharge T.P. Hub,
A.D. Complex, Mount Road, Sadar, Nagpur.
...APPELLANT
(Org. Res. No. 2)
VERSUS
1) Shailaja wd/o Swapnil Gandewar,
Aged about 24 years, Occu. Nil,
2) Ku. Awani d/o Swapnil Gandewar,
Aged about 1 ½ years, Occu. Nil, minor
through mother and natural guardian,
respondent No.1.
3) [Ashok s/o Dattppa Gandewar,
Aged about 57 years, Occu. Service,
4) Mrs. Snehal w/o Ashok Gandewar,
Aged about 48 years, Occu. Nil,
All R/o. Quarter No. D-91/3, Urja Nagar,
C.T.P.S., Chandrapur.]
(Matter is dismissed against the respondent
Nos. 3 & 4 as per R(J) order dated 02/05/2018)
(Matter is restored against respondent Nos. 3
& 4 vide Court's order dated 22/06/2018)
....(Orig. Petitioners)
5) Ajaykumar s/o Jagdishprasad Shrivastav
Aged 45 years, Occu: Business, truck owner,
R/o. 'Sakin', Plot No.273, Govt. Press Society,
Wadi, Nagpur.
.....(Orig. Respdt. No.1)
(Ages in the cause title are as of the date of the petition)
...RESPONDENTS
J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 2/22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.N. Kukday, Advocate for the appellant
Shri Asghar Hussain, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SHRI ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
DATE : 02/07/2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard. Admit. With the consent of the learned Counsel for
the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing forthwith.
2. Original respondent No.2 – Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 03/08/2016, passed
by the learned Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- 3, Nagpur,
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), in Claim Petition No.
1173/2009, whereby, the claim of the petitioners/respondent No.1
to 4 was partly allowed, has preferred this appeal.
3. On 25/09/2009, the deceased Swapnil Ashok Gandewar was
returning to his house from the site on his motorcycle bearing No.
MH-26/P-7902 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ motorcycle’), when he
reached near Rahul Restaurant, and the power house,
Khaparkheda, at about 15:30 hours, one truck bearing No.
J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 3/22
CG-04/G-3275 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Truck’), came from behind
at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and gave a forceful
dash to his motorcycle from the backside. Due to the said dash, the
deceased fell on the road and sustained severe injuries. He was
taken to Asha Hospital, Nagpur, where he was admitted till
03/10/2009. He was then referred to Midas Institute
Gastroenterology, where he was admitted from 03/10/2009 to
06/10/2009. He was further referred to the Orange City Hospital
and Research Institute in Nagpur. However, during the treatment
on 18/10/2009, he succumbed to the said injuries.
4. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 30 years old
and working on his construction site allotted by M/s Shirke
Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. He was doing various types of
business and earning an income of Rs. 5,00,000/- to 6,00,000/- per
annum. Original petitioners No. 1 is a widow, No.2 is the daughter,
and Nos. 3 and 4 are the father and mother of the deceased. Due to
the untimely death of the deceased, they have suffered a great loss.
5. The respondent No.1 in the claim petition is the owner of the
truck, and respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is the insurer of
J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 4/22
the offending truck. At the time of the accident, insurance was
valid. As such, petitioners have filed a claim petition, seeking
compensation of Rs. 74,00,000/- from respondent Nos. 1 and 2,
jointly and severally.
6. The respondent No.1 in the original petition appeared but
did not file the written statement; therefore, the petition proceeded
without his written statement.
7. The respondent No.2/appellant filed the written statement
and denied the contents of the petition. However, they have not
disputed the ownership of the truck with respondent No. 1, and it
was insured with them.
8. Having considered the rival pleading of the parties, the
learned Tribunal has framed the issues. Pursuant to the issues,
claimants have led their evidence and produced and proved the
relevant documents. On the other hand, the Insurance company did
not examine any witnesses in support of its defence. After
considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal partly
allowed the petitioners’ claim. Being aggrieved by the same, the
Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.
J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 5/22
9. Heard learned Counsel for both parties. Perused the record
and proceedings, more particularly the impugned judgment,
evidence and the judgments on which the learned Counsel for both
parties relied. Having considered the same, the following point
arises for determination.
Whether any interference is required in the impugned judgment
and award ?.
10. Learned Counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the
appellant has challenged the judgment and award only on the point
of quantum. Likewise, the appellant company is not disputing the
involvement of the truck in question in the accident, which was
owned by the original respondent No. 1 and insured by them. He
further admitted that the policy was valid at the time of the
accident.
11. He further frankly submitted that he does not dispute that, as
per the mandate in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680 (for short – Pranay Sethi)
claimants are entitled to receive compensation under the head of
future prospects to the extent of an additional 40%.
J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 6/22
12. However, he vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal
has erred in relying on the income of the deceased for the income
tax return for the assessment year 2009 – 2010, which was
submitted on behalf of the deceased after his death. The learned
Tribunal has erred in granting the compensation based on the said
income tax return. In fact, the same cannot be taken into
consideration as the same was filed after the death of the deceased.
He further submitted that the average income of the deceased over
the preceding three years should be taken into consideration when
calculating his income. He further canvassed that income tax and
professional tax should be deducted from the deceased’s average
income. Therefore, he urges modifying the impugned judgment and
award by reducing the amount of compensation as per the average
income of the deceased for the last three years.
13. He also argued that parents of the deceased were not
dependent on him as the father was in service and earning the
income; however, the learned Tribunal erred in considering them as
dependents of the deceased and thereby erred in deducting 1/4 th of
the amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased instead
of 1/3rd of the income. Therefore, the judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal require interference by this Court.
J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 7/22
To buttress his submission, he is relying on the judgment as
follows:
1) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ajay Kumar
Mohanty and another (2018) 3 SCC 686
2) Sangita Arya and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and
others, (2020) 5 SCC 327
3) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sekh Mariyam Bibi and
others, 2023 ACJ 2428
14. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents supported
the judgment and order of the Tribunal. He argued that the learned
Tribunal has rightly considered the evidence on record in its proper
perspective and came to the conclusion that the deceased was
earning an amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- per annum as per the income
tax return for the assessment year 2009-10.
To buttress his submission, he is relying on the judgment as
follows:
1) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indiro Devi and others, 2018 ACJ
2051
2) Surekha and others Vs. Santosh and others, 2002 ACJ 2156
3) Sadhana and others Vs. Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. and another,
2024 ACJ 1424.
4) Shashikala and others Vs. Gangalakshmamma and another, 2015 ACJ
1239
5) Kavita Aggarwal and another Vs. Sarbajit Singh and others, 2023 ACJ
2018
J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 8/22
15. He further argued that in view of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the above-cited judgment, if the income tax
return is filed after the death of the deceased, then the income for
the said year has to be taken into consideration. It would not be
proper to discard the said income tax return. Therefore, he urged
that no interference is required in the impugned judgment and that
the appeal be dismissed.
16. I have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions of
the learned Counsel for both parties. At the outset, it is worth
noting that the appellant does not dispute the occurrence of the
accident, the involvement of the truck in the said accident, which
was insured by it. He also does not dispute the mandate in Pranay
Sethi (supra); therefore, he has not disputed that the claimants are
entitled to the claim as per the mandate in Pranay Sethi‘s case. The
appellant challenged the judgment and award only on the point of
quantum, as the learned Tribunal erred in determining the annual
income of the deceased.
17. During the argument, learned Counsel for the appellant has
taken me through the pleading and evidence on record and tried to
canvass that the learned Tribunal has erred in considering the gross
J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 9/22
income of the deceased for the assessment year 2009-10, instead of
the average income for the last three years. He further emphasised
that after the deceased’s death, the income tax return was filed on
13th November 2009, and therefore, it cannot be taken into
consideration. However, he does not dispute that the income for
which the income tax return was filed for the financial year
01/04/2008 to 31/03/2009.
18. On perusal of the evidence of the claimant No.2/PW.1, it
reveals that during evidence he has produced and proved the
income tax return of the deceased for the Assessment Year 2007-08
(Exh. 40), 2008-09 and 2009-10 (Exh. 41/1, 41/2) as well as Form
No. 16-A (Exh. 42). During his cross-examination, he categorically
deposed that the income shown in the income tax returns is correct.
The income of the deceased is disclosed from the income tax
returns. No suggestion was put to him that the income tax return
filed for the assessment year 2009-10 was exorbitant or incorrect;
therefore, there is no reason to discard the said income tax returns.
19. It is pertinent to note that the filing of the return for the
assessment year 2009-10 relates to the financial/accounting year
from 01/04/2008 to 31/03/2009, and the deceased died on
J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 10/22
08/10/2009, i.e. after the completion of the said financial year .
Therefore, merely filing the income tax returns belatedly, i.e. after
the date of the accident, alone cannot be a ground to discard the
returns for the assessment year 2009-10. On the contrary, the
income tax return is a legally admissible document on which the
income assessment of the deceased could be made. Likewise, “it is
no longer res integra that the income tax returns are reliable
evidence to assess the income of a deceased “. Therefore, I do not
find substance in the argument advanced by the learned Counsel
for the appellant that the learned Tribunal erred in taking the
income for the assessment year 2009-10, while calculating the
income of the deceased.
20. Apart from this, on perusal of the Form No. 16 issued by the
M/s Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd., who used to assign
work to the deceased, the said Form No. 16 is for the period of
01/04/2008 to 31/03/2009, wherein, it is shown that an amount
of Rs. 22,67,362/- was credited in the bank account of the
deceased by showing his pan number details i.e. AJMPG9967F. On
the said amount, they have deducted the TDS, Surcharge and
Education Cess, totalling an amount of Rs. 25,689/-. Form No. 16
J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 11/22
indicates that the deceased had done the work assigned to him by
the said company M/s Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd.
and therefore, that amount was credited to his bank account by
deducting the TDS. The appellant did not dispute the said Form No.
16. Thus, there is no reason to discard the said document, which
categorically shows that the deceased was having income from the
said M/s Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. for the financial
year 01/04/2008 to 31/03/2009, i.e. prior to his death. However,
as observed above, the income for the assessment year 2009-10
must be taken into consideration as the said income was for the
financial year 2008-09, i.e. before the death of the deceased, and
merely filing the returns after the death of the deceased cannot be
a ground to discard the returns for the assessment year 2009-10.
21. I have gone through the calculation tendered by the learned
Counsel for the appellant along with the pursis before the Court,
and also perused the judgment relied upon by him. It appears that
he has calculated the income based on the deceased’s average
income of the returns filed for the assessment years 2007-08 and
2008-09, and has taken the average income as Rs. 1,60,195.50/-.
However, he failed to consider the income of the deceased for the
J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 12/22
assessment year 2009-10, i.e., the financial year 2008-09,
amounting to Rs. 3,00,347/-. After deduction of Income Tax Rs.
15,521/-, which comes to Rs. 2,84,826/-, therefore, the calculation
made by the learned Counsel for appellant about the total
compensation to the extent of the claimant’s entitlement,
amounting to Rs. 31,06,955/-, is inaccurate. Though in a normal
circumstance the returns to be reckoned should be the one filed
prior to the date of death, what is material is that the income
assessed to tax should be of the period prior to the date of death.
22. Perused the judgment more particularly, paragraph Nos.
12.2, 13 and 14 in Sangita Arya (supra) and paragraph No.7 in Ajay
Kumar Mohanty (supra), and in Sekh Mariyam Bibi (supra) as pointed
out by the learned Counsel for the appellant . In all the decisions,
the question for consideration was whether the filing of income tax
returns after the deceased’s death can be taken into consideration.
However, as discussed above in the case at hand, the filing of
income tax returns for the financial year preceding the deceased’s
death is the relevant consideration.
23. On the other hand, the judgment relied upon by the learned
Counsel for the respondents in Kavita Aggarwal (supra), the Hon’ble
J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 13/22
Apex Court categorically held that “though in normal circumstances
the returns to be reckoned should be the one filed prior to the date
of death. What is material is that the income assessed to tax should be
for the period prior to the date of the death . Therefore, they have
taken into consideration the deceased’s income in the said case for
the financial/accounting year preceding his death .” Similarly, in
Nidhi Bhargava V. National Insurance Co.Ltd. & others, 2025 SCC On
Line SC 872, the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held , “The income
tax return is a legally admissible document on which the income
assessment of the deceased could be made .” Also, it was observed that
“it would be up to the Tribunal concerned to adopt either the average
income therefrom or to choose the assessment year to rely upon while
calculating the income of the deceased” as the Act is a beneficial and
welfare legislation that seeks to provide compensation as per the
contemporaneous position of an individual, which is essentially
forward-looking.
24. The next submission was that the Tribunal erred in deducting
1/4th of the amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased
instead of 1/3rd of the income. It is worth noting that petitioners in
petition (paragraph 19-C) and PW-1 Ashok in his evidence
(paragraph 6) categorically stated and deposed that the petitioners
J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 14/22
are totally dependent on the deceased; the said averment and
testimony are neither denied nor challenged. Thus, there is no
reason to discard said testimony. As such, I do not find substance
in his contention.
25. In such an eventuality, even if the average net income of the
three preceding financial years from 2006-07, (Income Rs.
1,19,280- Tax Rs. 1967= Net income Rs. 1,17,313), 2007-08
(Income Rs. 171985- Tax Rs. 8650 = Net income Rs. 1,63,335/-)
and 2008-09 (Income Rs. 3,00,347- Tax Rs. 15521 = Net income
Rs. 2,84,826/-) were taken into consideration, which comes to Rs.
( 1,17,313 + 1,63,335+ 2,84,826 = 5,65,474/3= 1,88,491/-)
(Average Income Rs. 1,88,491/- and after deduction of the
professional tax (Rs.2400/- p.a.) payable on the said, the net
income would come to an amount of Rs. 1,86,091/-. {Rs.1,88,491 –
2400) =Rs. 1,86,091/-}. Undisputedly, while passing the judgment
and order, the learned Tribunal did not grant the compensation
under the head of future prospects, for which the learned Counsel
for the appellant does not dispute that the deceased was entitled to
40% additional income under the head of future prospects. At the
time of the accident, the deceased was 30 years old.
J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 15/22
26. The Hon’ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s
Satinder Kaur, reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780, after considering the
mandate in the judgment in Pranay Sethi‘s case, awarded
compensation of Rs. 40,000/- each under the head of spousal
consortium, parental consortium as well as filial consortium, which
should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. That
comes to Rs. 48,400/-.
27. If the compensation under the head of consortium, would
have to be calculated then it comes to Rs. 1,93,600/-
(48400×4=1,93,600/) i.e. less (than Rs. 6,400/-) than what has
been awarded by the Tribunal under the head of consortium
(Rs.1,00,000/-) and towards love and affection to petitioners No.2
to 4 of Rs.1,00,000/-. The total of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Therefore, it
appears that the learned Tribunal erred in granting Rs. 6,400/- in
excess compensation under these heads. On the contrary, as per the
mandate in Satinder Kaur (supra), the claimants are entitled to an
amount of Rs. 1,93,600/- under the three heads of consortium
instead of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
28. Hence, in the peculiar facts of the case involved herein, a
proper assessment of the income is required to be determined.
J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 16/22
Thus, in my opinion, even assuming, as per the submission of the
learned Counsel for the appellant, that the average income of the
last three assessment years was taken into consideration, then it
would come as under:-
Age 30 years Dependents 4 Average Gross Income Rs 1,88,491/- p.a. (After payment of I.T.) of the last three years Rs 2400/- Professional Tax Net Income Rs 1,86,091/- p.a. Future Prospects 40% Multiplier 17 Sr. Compensation Heads Amount Awarded No. (i) Net Income Rs 1,86,091 /-p.a. (ii) After deduction towards personal expenses Rs 46,523/- as four dependents (1/4) (Rs1,86,091- Rs 46,523 = Rs 1,39,568/-) (iii) Towards Future Prospects as age is below Rs 55,827/- 40 (40%) (iv) Multiplicand Rs 1,95,395/- (1,39,568+ 55,827) (v) Multiplier (as age was between 26-30 y) 17 (vi) Loss of Income of the deceased Rs. 33,21,715/- (1,95,395 x 17) (vii) Compensation to be awarded (A) Rs 33,21,715/- J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 17/22 Sr Conventional Heads Amount No. (i) Funeral Expense (15,000 with 10% increase every 3 years Rs 18,150/- from 2017) (ii) Loss of Estate (15,000 with 10% increase every 3 years Rs 18,150/- from 2017) (iii) Loss of Consortium to each of 4 Dependents (40,000 with Rs 1,93,600/- 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) (48,400 x 4) (iv) Compensation under Conventional Head (B) Rs 2,29,900/- Total Compensation Total Compensation to be Awarded as Rs 33,21,715/- + Rs 2,29,900/- per Average Income of last three = Rs 35,51, 615/- years (A+ B)
Thus, by calculating the compensation by the Average
income method, it comes to Rs 35,51,615/-.
If the compensation is calculated based on the last income
tax return filed on behalf of the deceased for the 2009-2010
financial year, the compensation would amount to Rs. 52,72,216,
as under :-
Age 30 years Dependents 4 Last Gross Income Rs 3,00,347/- Income Tax Rs 15,521/- Rs 2400/- Professional Tax Net Income Rs 2,82,426/- p.a Future Prospects 40% Multiplier 17 J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 18/22 Sr. Compensation Heads Amount Awarded No. (i) Net Income Rs 2,82,426 /-p.a. (ii) After deduction towards personal expenses Rs 70,606/- as four dependents (1/4) (Rs 2,82,426- Rs 70,606 = Rs 2,11,820/-) (iii) Towards Future Prospects, as age is below Rs. 84,728/- 40 years (40%) (iv) Multiplicand Rs 2,96,548/- (2,11,820+ 84,728) (v) Multiplier (as age is between 26-30 y) 17 (vi) Loss of Income of the deceased Rs 50,41,316/- (2,96,548 x 17) (vii) Compensation to be awarded (A) Rs 50,41,316/- Sr Conventional Heads Amount No. (i) Funeral Expense (15,000 with 10% increase every 3 Rs 18,150/- years from 2017) (ii) Loss of Estate (15,000 with 10% increase every 3 Rs 18,150/- years from 2017) (iii) Loss of Consortium to each of 4 Dependents (40,000 Rs 1,93,600/- with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) (48,400 x 4) (iv) Compensation under Conventional Head (B) Rs 2,29,900/- Total Compensation Total Compensation to be Rs 50,41,316/- + Rs 2,29,900/- Awarded as per Last Income = Rs 52,71, 216/- (A+ B) Thus, by calculating the compensation taking into
consideration income based on the Last year’s income tax return
method, it comes to Rs 52,71,216/-.
J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 19/22
29. Having considered the above discussion and the fact that if
the income Tax returns of the last year, i.e for the assessment year
2009-10 (i. e. 2008-09 of financial year) is to be taken in to
consideration then it would come to Rs 52,71,216/- more than what
has been granted by the Tribunal. However, the calculation of
income based on the average income of the last three assessment
years was taken into consideration; therefore, the amount came to
Rs 35,51,615/-. If the average income is calculated using both
methods, it comes to approximately Rs. 44,08,066/-. The learned
Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 42,48,342/-. Therefore,
considering that the aim and intent of the Act is a beneficial and
welfare legislation, as well as observations in Nidhi Bhargava (supra)
and not raising cross objection or appeal by the
respondents/claimants regarding quantum, I am not inclined to
interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. However, some
differences in compensation amount arise. Thus, I disagree with the
computation of compensation calculated by the learned Counsel for
the appellant as well as the respondents, along with the pursis.
30. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances as well as
the mandate in Pranay Sethi as well as Satinder Kaur and others
J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 20/22
(supra), and Sangita Arya (supra), it is revealed that the claimants
are entitled to a compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. It
is apparent that the learned Counsel for the appellant failed to
demonstrate that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was
exorbitant; therefore, I do not find substance in the argument
advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant in that regard.
31. For the above reasons and factual position, as well as
observations in Nidhi Bhargava and Kavita Aggarwal (supra), in my
view, the observations made in the decisions cited by the learned
Counsel for the appellant has hardly any assistance to him in
support of his contentions. Besides, the petitioners failed to file a
cross-objection or appeal challenging the judgment on the point of
quantum till the argument. For the first time in the argument, they
raised the question of quantum. Even considering the average
income of the three preceding years, compensation would amount
to Rs. 35,51,615, which is less than the amount granted by the
Tribunal. As such, the observations made in Surekha Vs. Santosh
(supra), there is hardly any assistance to the respondents that the
court should not take a hyper-technical approach for refusing to
grant an enhanced amount merely on the ground that they have
J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 21/22
not filed a cross-appeal/cross-objection for enhancement of the
claim, and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected
person or claimants.
32. As discussed above, in my opinion, the claimants also failed
to demonstrate that the average income of the deceased for the
years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 was above what has been
granted by the Tribunal.
33. The upshot of the above discussion reveals that the appellant
failed to demonstrate that the learned Tribunal has granted
exorbitant compensation to the claimants, or that the claimants
failed to show that they are entitled to more compensation than
what has been granted by the Tribunal. Consequently, the judgment
and order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. As a result, no
interference is warranted in the impugned judgment. Hence, I
answer the point in the negative.
34. As a sequel, the amount lying in this Court shall be
transferred to the bank accounts of the respondents/claimants as
per the award, as per their proportionate share along with accrued
interest thereon, on furnishing their bank account details to the
J-FA-651-2018 (A.R) New.odt 22/22
Registry. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed as
lacking merit. No order as to costs.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)
Jayashree..
[ad_1]
Source link