Dismissed

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai v. Smt. Babita @ Babitakumari Arun Sharma and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Dec 2023FA/98/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal, the High Court dismissed the insurer's challenge to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The Court upheld the income assessment of Rs.34,630/month as supported by evidence, rejected the untimely plea on contributory negligence, and awarded consortium money to three eligible claimants excluding the deceased's brother, upholding the Tribunal's order.

What did the court decide?

The appeal dismissed; claimants entitled to Rs.1,32,000 plus 7.5% interest from 1st November 2017.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai Vs Smt. Babita @… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

11-FA-98-2023.doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2023

¶6

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Chintamani Avenue, 4th Floor,
Opp. Western Express Highway
Next to Virwani Industrial Estate, Near Oberoi
Tower, Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 063….Appellant

¶7

 Versus

¶8

1. Babita @ Babitakumari Arun Sharma
 Aged about 27 years, widow of the deceased
2. Anshika Arun Sharma
 Aged about 7 months
 Minor daughter of the deceased (Through the
 mother and next friend- Babita Arun Sharma)
3. Ashok Anupal Sharma
 Aged about 60 years- Father of the deceased

¶9

4. Pramila Ashok Sharma
 Aged about – 54 years, Mother of the deceased
 (deleted)
5. Amit Ashok Sharma
 Aged about 31 years
 Brother of the deceased
 All residing at Flat No. 403, A-Wing,
 Panchvati Dham, Shiv Vallabh Road, Ashokvan,
 Dahisar (East), Mumbai – 400 068
6. Vishwanath M. Vishwakarma
 Laxmi Complex R-63, Kalher Village,
 Tal. Bhiwandi, Thane – 421 308

¶10

Org.
….Claimants
Respondent
….

¶11

Ms. Shalini Shankar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. T.J.Mendon, Advocate for Respondents

¶12

 CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
 DATE : 6th DECEMBER, 2023

¶13

1/4

¶14

11-FA-98-2023.doc

¶15

S.S.Kilaje

¶16

JUDGMENT :

¶17

1. The issues involved in this appeal are income of deceased is
considered on higher side and at the time of accident deceased was not
wearing helmet.

¶18

2.It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that
Tribunal has considered monthly income of deceased @Rs.34,630/- per
month without any evidence on record which is on higher side. Learned
counsel further submitted that deceased was not wearing helmet at the
time of accident. There was contributory negligence of the deceased in
the said accident but this fact is not considered by the Tribunal and
awarded compensation which is erroneous, hence requested to allow the
appeal.

¶19

3.It is the contention of learned counsel for the
claimant/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that deceased was working as a Account
Manager in Global Direct Company. He was earning Rs.40,000/- per
month. After deducting TDS and professional tax the Tribunal has
considered Rs.34,630/- per month as a salary of deceased which is proper.
Learned counsel further submitted that the issue regarding wearing
helmet of the deceased is taken for the first time before this Court and it
was not taken before the Tribunal. He submitted that the consortium
amount was paid only to the first claimant and not to the other claimants.

¶20

2/4

¶21

11-FA-98-2023.doc

¶22

S.S.Kilaje

¶23

It be awarded.

¶24

4.I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused the Judgment
and Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai (for
short “the Tribunal”). To prove the income of deceased claimants have
examined claimant No.3, he has stated that deceased was working with
Global Direct Company as a Branch Manager at Thane and was earning
salary of Rs.40,000/-p.m. A letter issued by Global Direct Company is at
Exhibit-33. To support the evidence of the claimant, they have examined
AW-2 Bhavik Shah (Exhibit-32), Account Manager in Global Direct
Company, he has stated that deceased was not salaried employee of their
company and they were paying him commission for the service provided
by him. To prove the bank account statements of the deceased, the
claimants have examined Madhukar Warkhande (AW-3) at Exhibit-38.
This witness has stated about Saving Account of the deceased.
Considering the evidence on record after deducting TDS amount and
professional tax amount the Tribunal has considered monthly income of
deceased at Rs.34,630/-. I do not find any infirmity in it.

¶25

5.In respect of issue of deceased was not wearing helmet at the
time of accident, this plea was not taken before the Tribunal and no
evidence was produced before the Tribunal by the appellant. Hence I do
not see merit in it. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- as consortium

¶26

3/4

¶27

11-FA-98-2023.doc

¶28

S.S.Kilaje

¶29

amount. There are five claimants. As per the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram1 each claimant is
entitled for Rs.44,000/- as consortium amount. Claimant No.5 is brother

¶30

of deceased so he is not entitled for the consortium amount. Rest of the
three claimants are entitled for consortium amount.

¶31

It comes to Rs.44,000/- X 3 = Rs.1,32,000/-.

¶32

6. Considering the above reasons, I pass following order:

¶33

(i) The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶34

(ii) The claimants are entitled for Rs.1,32,000/- at 7.5%

¶35

interest per annum from 1st November, 2017 till
realisation of the amount.

¶36

(iii) Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit

¶37

enhanced amount along with interest within four
weeks.

¶38

(iv) The claimants are permitted to withdraw deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon.

¶39

(v) The statutory amount along with accrued interest be

¶40

transferred to the Tribunal. The parties are at liberty
to withdraw it as per rule.

¶41

7.The appeal is disposed off.

¶42

 (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶43

1 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC)

¶44

4/4

¶45

SONALISATISHKILAJE Digitally signedby SONALISATISH KILAJEDate:2023.12.1214:30:35+0530

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai v. Smt. Babita @ Babitakumari Arun Sharma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai v. Smt. Babita @ Babitakumari Arun Sharma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Pappu Gangaram Yadav and Anr. Vs Mr. Nandankumar Kailash Jha and Ors.

Future Generali India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt.Sarika Ramdas Dhebe and Ors.

Harshada Rakesh Bhadrike and Ors. Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisional Controller, Raigad

The Divisional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited vs Mr. Sindhu Ashok Rathod and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Vikas Vishwanath Mishra and Anr.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through Divisional Manager, Nashik Vs Kumar Pradip Sham Borade and Anr.