Dismissed

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Pooja Mukund Gondhale and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Feb 2024FA/1012/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant insurance company appealed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.7,000/- monthly income for the deceased, arguing it was unsupported and too low. The court held the income assessment reasonable and relied on precedent regarding future prospects for self-employed persons, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The statutory amount is transmitted to the Tribunal. Claimants permitted to withdraw deposited amount with interest.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Pooja Mukund… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

237-fa-1012-2015.doc

¶2

Shubhada S Kadam

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.1012 OF 2015

¶5

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Ajmer, D.O.Shanti Mansion, Kotwali Scheme Khilano Market, Ajmer, Rajasthan 305 002. ...Appellant versus

¶6

1 Pooja Mukund Gondhale,

¶7

Age 38 years, Occ: Household.

¶8

2 Prajot Mukund Gondhale,

¶9

Age 18 years, Occ.Student

¶10

3 Prajakta Mukund Gondhale Age 14 years, Occ: Student Through Guardian Smt. Pooja Mukund Gondhale, All residing at Samrat Garden,

¶11

B2/1, Hadpsar, Pune 411 028.

¶12

4 Chandra Prakash Gurjer S/o. SH. Chiranjilal Suttarkhanna Mohalla, Nasirbad, Nasirabad, Rajasthan 601. ...Respondents

¶13

Mr. Shrikant Madhukar Dange, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. Ketki Gokhale i/b. Mr. A. M. Gokhale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants.

¶14

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶15

DATE : 13^th FEBRUARY, 2024.

¶16

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2024.02.27 10:57:31 +0530

¶17

1/3

¶18

237-fa-1012-2015.doc

¶19

Shubhada S Kadam

¶20

Oral Judgment :

¶21

1. The issue involved in this appeal is income of the deceased is considered on higher side and awarding of future prospects.

¶22

It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company that the Tribunal has considered monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7000/- per month without any evidence on record, which is on higher side. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal should not have awarded future prospects as notional monthly income of the deceased is considered. Hence, requested to allow the appeal.

¶23

It is contention of learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants that deceased was doing business of xerox and stationery and he owned agricultural land. From both sources, he used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month but the Tribunal has considered Rs.7000/- as monthly income of the deceased, which is proper. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects while passing judgment and order. No interference is required in it.

¶24

I have heard both learned counsel, perused judgment and order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune (for short “the Tribunal”).

¶25

To prove the income of the deceased, the claimants examined claimant No.1-Pooja Gondhale. She has stated that her husband was running shop of xerox and stationery at Hadapsar and he was getting

¶26

2/3

¶27

237-fa-1012-2015.doc

¶28

Shubhada S Kadam

¶29

income from agricultural land, he was earning around Rs.30,000/- per month. The certified copy of shop license at Exhibit-40. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has considered monthly income of deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. I do not find infirmity in it as the deceased was maintaining family of four persons.

¶30

In respect of issue of awarding future prospects, as per the view of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ 2700( SC) , self employed person is entitled for future prospects. Hence, I do not see merit in the contention that claimants are not entitled for future prospects.

¶31