Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Nanda Ankush Ingale and Ors.

¶1

24-FA568-2021+.DOC

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 568 OF 2021

¶4

WITH

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2554 OF 2020

¶6

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Nanda Ankush Ingale & Ors...Respondents

¶7

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3840 OF 2021

¶8

IN

¶9

FIRST APPEAL NO. 568 OF 2021

¶10

Smt. Nanda Ankush Ingale & Ors...Applicants
Versus
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd...Respondent

¶11

Mr. Nikhil Mehta, i/b KMC Legal Venture, for the Appellant &
Applicant in IA/2554/2020.

¶12

Mr. B.V. Kamble, for the Respondents in FA & for the
Applicants in IA/3840/2021.

¶13

ATUL GANESH KULKARNI

¶14

Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2021.12.17 14:42:26 +0530

¶15

CORAM:Smt. Bharati Dangre, J.
DATED:7th December 2021

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

24-FA568-2021+.DOC

¶18

P.C.:-

¶19

1.The Appeal itself deserve to be rejected on the short
point which is sought to be argued by Mr. Mehta, on behalf of
the Appellant, being that the parameters laid down in the
Constitution Bench decision in case of National Insurance
Co. Ltd v Pranay Sethi, cannot be made applicable, since
the accident took place prior to the said decision, though the
Applicant/Claimant filed Interim Application No. 3840 of
2021 seeking withdrawal of the decretal amount.

¶20

2.On 26.10.2021 an indication was given to the parties
that the Appeal itself will be heard finally on condoning the
delay. Stay was also granted subject to deposit of decretal
amount and it is informed that the Appellant has deposited
the entire decretal amount subject to which the impugned
judgment is stayed.

¶21

3.The claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Mumbai was instituted by the natural mother and brother of
one Umesh Ankush Ingale who was working as a labour
(Spiderman) in one S.A. Solutions Facility Management Ltd.,
Vikhroli, Mumbai and it was claimed that he was earning Rs.
10,000/- per month. He succumbed to the serious burn
injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident, which took
place on 04.03.2013. He could not survive the incident,

¶22

Page 2 of 7

¶23

24-FA568-2021+.DOC

¶24

resulted into registration of C.R. No. 54 of 2013 invoking
Section 279, 337, 338, 304-A and 285 of the Indian Penal
Code in Govandi Police Station, Mumbai against driver of the
tanker which was responsible for being driven in high and
rash speed. His widow has filed a claim for compensation
praying an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- from the opposite party
No. 1 and the insurer who is the Appellant in this Court.

¶25

4.On the issues being framed as to whether the accident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the offending tanker, it was answered in the affirmative along
with the issue as to whether the deceased had succumbed to
the injuries which he suffered in the accident. As far as the
claim for compensation, Claimant No. 1 adduced her evidence
and also examined the employer as A.W. 2. It is an admitted
position that the insurer in rebuttal has not examined any
witness.

¶26

In order to substantiate the claim sought, the Claimants
relied upon the documentary evidence, i.e. copy of the FIR,
copy of spot panchanama, inquest panchanama, copy of cause
of death certificate, copy of insurance policy, certificate of
driver of the offending vehicle, letter issued by the RTO to
Govandi Police Station, copy of the National Permit, copy of
driving licence of the driver of the offending tanker, as well
copies of the Aadhar card of the Claimant and also salary

¶27

Page 3 of 7

¶28

24-FA568-2021+.DOC

¶29

certificate of the deceased which is exhibited as Exhibit 40.

¶30

5.Applying the principle of ‘res ipsa loquitur’ on perusal of
the documents placed on record in the form of FIR as well as
the other documents, the accident was held to be on account
of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending
tanker.

¶31

6.As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the
Tribunal applied the principle flowing from the decision of the
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport
Corporationreported in 2009 ACJ 1298and National
Insurance Company v Pranay Sethi reported in 2017
ACJ 2700. The compensation has been worked out by
invoking the formula laid down by the Supreme Court in
Pranay Sethi and the Claimants are also entitled for the loss of
estate calculated at Rs. 15,000/- with 10% increase every 3
years, loss of consortium is only granted to the spouse to the
tune of Rs. 40,000/-, whereas funeral expenses of Rs.
15,000/- is also awarded. Loss of care and guidance for minor
children though claimed was not awarded which was to be
granted in Rajesh v Rajbirwhich was done away by the
recent orders of the Supreme Court.

¶32

7.The learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit
that the accident in question took place in 2013 and the law

¶33

Page 4 of 7

¶34

24-FA568-2021+.DOC

¶35

as laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi cannot be
made applicable to the said accident. The said objection is just
referred to be rejected since it is to be noted that the claim
petition was decided by the Tribunal on 21.09.2019 and the
compensation came to be awarded by taking the factors which
have been determined in Pranay Sethi, which is a binding
judgment on the date on which the petition was decided by
the Tribunal.

¶36

8.Serious objection raised as to the income of the
deceased being computed at Rs. 8,000/- is concerned, even
this objection is as hollow as the first one, since the income
that was claimed was Rs. 10,000/- but since the employer also
entered into the witness box and the income of the deceased
surfaced on record as Rs. 8,000/- and, therefore, the whole
calculation in paragraph 20 of the said judgment is based
upon the income being taken at Rs. 8,000/-. The amount of
compensation which has been computed in paragraphs 20 and
21 to the following effect:

¶37

“20.The income of deceased is considered as Rs.
10,000/- p.m. and by addition of 40% future
prospects i.e. Rs. 4,000/- it becomes Rs. 14,000/-
and by making deduction of one half of the said
amount for the personal expenses of deceased it
would be Rs. 7,000/- per month. The loss of

¶38

Page 5 of 7

¶39

24-FA568-2021+.DOC

¶40

dependency obviously comes to Rs. 7,000 x 12 =
Rs. 84,000/- p.a. and looking the age of deceased
i.e. 19 years, multiplier of ‘18’ would be
applicable. Therefore, Rs. 84,000/- x 18 = Rs.
15,12,000/- would be loss of dependency for the
claimants. Moreover the hospitalization bill of Rs.
55,000/- and medicine bills amounting to rs.
40,960/- are marked Exh. 42, 43/1 to 43/4
collectively, particularly the hospital bill is proved
by examining the concerned officer of the
hospital namely Nilesh Bambade (A.W. 2). Hence,
I find that the claimants are entitled for the
amount of Rs. 90,916/- which incurred on the
medical treatment of deceased.

¶41

21.The General and non pecuniary damages
which is now fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case Pranay Sethi…is set out as under.

¶42

HeadAmount (Rs.
Loss to Estate15,000/- with 10%
increase
every 3
years.
Loss of Consortium40,000/-
(in case of spouse)
Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
Loss of care and guidanceNilRemoved

¶43

Page 6 of 7

¶44

24-FA568-2021+.DOC

¶45

for minor childrenwhat was
in Rajesh
Vs. Rajbir
case.”

¶46

Award of the compensation, as stated above, in my
considered opinion do not warrant any interference in view of
the fact that Pranay Sethi (supra) a Constitution Bench
Judgment is the judgment holding the field, which provide
guidelines on how the amount of compensation is to be
awarded, particularly under the head of loss of estate and
consortium along with funeral expenses.

¶47

9. The Appeal deserve to be dismissed.

¶48

10. On the Appeal being dismissed, the Respondents/
Claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount
deposited by the insurance company along with interest which
has accrued till the date of its withdrawal.

¶49

11. Upon the aforesaid, Interim Application No. 3840 of
2021 is disposed of as no orders are necessary.

¶50

(Smt. Bharati Dangre, J.)

¶51

Page 7 of 7

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Nanda Ankush Ingale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Nanda Ankush Ingale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Esha Kalpesh Jain @ Esha Devendrakumar Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri. Ganpatrao Appasaheb Patil and Ors. Vs the Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. through Administrator and Anr.

Rajesh Vithalrao Gaikwad and Others Vs Kautaka W/O. Rajesh Gaikwad

Tanaji Ramgonda Patil Vs Vishwanath Subrao Kashid and Ors.

Smt. Dhondubai Dhondiba Shinde and Anr. Vs Sadashiv Iru Shinde and Anr.

Pramod Krushna Shilevant Vs Krushna Rau Shilevant (Since Decd.) through Lrs. and Ors.