Insurance company appealed a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, contending the deceased's yearly income was fixed too high without evidence. The court found testimony of the deceased's business clients and bank records justified the income assessment and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
57-FA-444-2021.doc
Shubhada S Kadam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 444 OF 2021
The New India Assurance Col Ltd.
Legal Cell, 3 rd floor, Above Nehru
Memorial Hall Camp, Pune – 411 001. … Appellant
Versus
1 Nilima Santosh Gulunjkar,
Age – 29 years, Occu-Household.
2 Kartiki Santosh Gulunjkar
Age – 29 years, Occu – Education
3 Dwip Santosh Gulunjkar
Age – 2 years, Occu – Education
4 Malan Kisan Gulunjkar,
Age – 55 years, Occu-Household
5 Kisan Govind Gulunjkar
Age – 60 years, Occu – Business,
Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are minor, hence,
through Applicant No.1 as a mother and natural
guardian
All are R/at Ganganivas S.N.113/10K
Revet Walhekarwadi Road, Chinchwad, ... Original
Pune -33. Applicants
6 Kalpana Jagdishkumar Bhadra,
Age Adult, Occupation -Business,
R/o. Flat No.1, Ashirwad, Lodha Complex,
Achole Road, Nalasopara East, Vasai Thane. ... Opponent
Respondents
Ms. Shalini Shankar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Rajesh More along with Mr. Soham Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2024.03.06 12:29:16 +0530
DATE : 21st FEBRUARY, 2024.
1/5
57-FA-444-2021.doc
Shubhada S Kadam
Oral Judgment :
2/5
57-FA-444-2021.doc
Shubhada S Kadam
He has stated that, at the time of the accident, the deceased had completed the course of Diploma in Trade of Mechanic (Radio and Television). He further stated that the deceased had started his own business under the name and style of “Trushna Enterprises” and he was doing fabrication and electrical work. He was doing work for SKF (India) Limited at Chinchwad. He was getting profit of Rs.3,97,930/- per annum. He has further stated that all family members were dependent on the income of the deceased. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he is a vegetable vendor. In support of evidence of PW-1, the claimants have examined PW2- Manish Kulkarni, Finance Manager of SKF India Limited at Exhibit-44. He has stated that he knows Trushna Enterprises. The said company used to supply electrical items to their company and also used to render services to their company. He has further stated that in the year 2011-2012, his company had purchased good of Rs.29,57,091/from Trushna Enterprises. He stated that in the said financial year, his company made payment of Rs.28,22,631/- to Trushna Enterprises by cheque. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that as per Government Rules, 2% TDS is deducted on services provided for Company. This witness denied the suggestion that his company did not pay the amount of Rs.28,22,631/-to Trushna Enterprises.
The claimants have examined PW3-Mandar Lombar, Branch Manager of Kalyan Janta Sahakari Bank at Exhibit-52. He has stated that
3/5
57-FA-444-2021.doc
Shubhada S Kadam
Trushna Enterprises had bank account with their bank. The statement of bank account of Trushna Enterprises is at Exhibit-53.
While dealing with the issue of income of the deceased, the Tribunal has observed that after going through the bank statement and several transactions in respect of withdrawal of money by ATM as well as evidence on record, the Tribunal has considered the yearly income of deceased at Rs.3,10,000/- per annum. I do not find infirmity in it. In my view, it has come in the evidence of PW2, the Finance Manager of SKF India Limited that their company had paid more than Rs.28,00,000/- to the company of the deceased in one financial year. It shows that the deceased was earning profit of more than Rs.3,00,000/- per annum.
It is contention of learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants that after the death of deceased, his company is closed down and there is no male member in the family of deceased to run the said company and claimant No.5 who is the father of deceased is a vegetable vendor. In my view, after the death of deceased, the business is closed as well as the Tribunal has awarded consortium amount on lower side, it would come more than Rs.2,00,000/-. This amount can be equated with the income of the deceased. Considering these facts, the income considered by the Tribunal is proper. I do not find any infirmity in it.
4/5
57-FA-444-2021.doc
Shubhada S Kadam
O R D E R
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's annual income at Rs.3,10,000/- was excessive given the evidence of his business earnings.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Nilima Santosh Gulunjkar
Kartiki Santosh Gulunjkar
Dwip Santosh Gulunjkar
Malan Kisan Gulunjkar
Kisan Govind Gulunjkar
Shivkumar Dige
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
