M/S. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2025)

M/S. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; in addition to the compensation determined by the Tribunal, the claimants are entitled to Rs.48,000/- x 3 i.e. Rs.1,44,000/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till realisation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the offending tempo was falsely involved in the accident, as urged by the insurer on the ground that the FIR was lodged belatedly (accident on 27th January 2020; FIR lodged on 31st January 2020) with no explanation for the delay. +3 more

Court's answer

On preponderance of probability the claimants proved that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the tempo: the offence was registered against the driver, the charge-sheet was never challenged by him, and nothing elicited in the cross-examination of the claimants' witness discards the claimants' case; the plea of false involvement based on the belated FIR therefore fails.

Ratio / Principle

The Insurer led no evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate rash or negligent riding of the motor-cycle by the deceased or non-wearing of helmet; on the evidence available, the deceased cannot be held negligent in any manner in the occurrence of the accident.

Key takeaways

There is no bar to considering the Income Tax Return for a year for determination of compensation; income need be proved only on probability, and the last drawn income was proved through cogent evidence in the form of Income Tax Returns, nothing having been suggested in cross-examination that the deceased did not have such income; the Court therefore finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award on quantum.ratio¶45
In view of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram (2018 ACJ 2782 SC), parental consortium is required to be paid and was not paid to the three claimants, who are therefore entitled to Rs.48,000/- x 3, i.e. Rs.1,44,000/-; in view of Pappu Deo Yadav (referred to as 'Papu Devi') (supra), such enhancement can be sought even without filing an appeal or cross-objection and is accordingly allowed.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Insurer's first appeal under S.173 MV Act against the Tribunal's award in M.A.C.P.266 of 2020 (dated 30th April 2024) of Rs.61,89,567/- with 9% p.a. interest in a fatal tempo–motorcycle collision, dismissed. Held: (i) the plea of false involvement of the tempo founded on the belated FIR (accident 27.01.2020, FIR 31.01.2020) fails — the offence stood registered against the tempo driver, the charge-sheet was never challenged, and cross-examination elicited nothing to displace the claimants' case proved on preponderance of probability; (ii) the insurer having led no evidence on the deceased's negligence or non-wearing of helmet, no contributory negligence is made out; (iii) a single year's Income Tax Return is cogent proof of the deceased's last drawn income and no interference with the quantum is warranted; (iv) following Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018 ACJ 2782 SC), parental consortium is payable — additional Rs.1,44,000/- (Rs.48,000 x 3) granted with 7% p.a. interest; and per Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar (AIR 2020 SC 4424) such enhancement lies even without a cross-appeal or cross-objection.

53-fa-1832-2024.doc

Shubhada S Kadam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1832 of 2024

M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chintamani Avenue, 4^th Floor, Next to Virvani Industrial Estate, Wester Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Appellant Mumbai – 400 063. Original (Insurer of Motor Tempo bearing … Respondent registration No..MH-43-Y-6361) No.2

versus

1 Sonam Dilip Yadav, Aged about 26 years, Occupation : Household.

2 Radhemohan Baliram Yadav, Aged : 62 Years, Occupation Nil (since deceased his name is deleted)

3 Santradevi Rademohan Yadav, Aged : 58 years, Occupation :- Nil.

4 Siddhi Dilip Yadav, Aged about 7 years, Occupation -Student.

5 Nidhi Dilip Yadav, Aged : above 02 years, Occupation – Nil Petitioner Nos.04 and 5 being minors represented by natural guardian mother – petitioner No.01 All R/at B 01/202 Pooja Park, A-B-B1 CHS Ltd., Respondent Oppo Mira Bhayender Road, Nos.1 to Mira Road (East), Bhayender, 5/Original Thane-401 105. Claimants

SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2025.11.24 18:48:37 +0530

6 Ramabahdur Vishwakrama, Age-Adult, Occupation;-Business R/at A-1/58/5, Sector No.-12, Respondent Turbhe Navi Mumbai, No.6/ Dist-Thane-400705. Original (Owner of motor tempo bearing registration Respondent No.MH-43-Y-636) No.1

1/7

53-fa-1832-2024.doc

Shubhada S Kadam

Ms. Kalpana Trivedi, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. Rina Kundu,Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants.

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 21st NOVEMBER, 2025.

Oral Judgment:

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the M. V. Act”), takes exception to the judgment and award dated 30^th April 2024 passed in M.A.C.P.266 of 2020 whereby the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.61,89,567/- along with interest @ 9% per annum in a death claim.

The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are narrated in brief as under :

It is the case of the claimants that deceased -Dilip aged about 29 years was returning home from Vasai on motor bike bearing registration No.MH – 02-CF-0657 with his colleague/pillion-rider. It is claimed that the deceased was riding motor-cycle in moderate speed. When they reached at the spot of the accident, a tempo bearing registration No.MH-43-Y-6361 which was proceeding ahead of the motor-cycle suddenly took left turn without indicating any signal and as a result of which, the motor-cycle dashed against the said vehicle. In the said accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries and was declared

2/7

53-fa-1832-2024.doc

Shubhada S Kadam

dead before admission in hospital. The pillion-rider also sustained serious injuries. On the basis of information lodged, the police recorded Crime No.I-00100 of 2020 for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code 1860 and the M.V.Act. It is their claim that the deceased was running a rubber factory and was earning Rs.3,40,590/- per annum and that the claimants were dependent on him.

The owner of the vehicle though served with the notice, failed to appear before the Tribunal and hence, the claim proceeded ex-parte against him. Opponent No.2 i.e. Insurer of the offending vehicle contested the claim by filing written statement at Exhibit-19. Apart from denying the contentions of the claimants, there is specific plea raised that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license and thus, there is a breach of terms and conditions of the policy. It is also claimed that the deceased himself was negligent in riding the motor-cycle and hence, the insurer is not liable for payment of compensation.

The Tribunal framed issues at Exhibit-20. Claimants examined claimant No.1 Smt. Sonam at Exhibit-24 and in addition thereto, led evidence of Sanjiv to prove the medical expenses and examined Prakash at Exhibit-48 to prove the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle. No evidence was led by the Insurer before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the claim. Hence, the present appeal.

3/7

53-fa-1832-2024.doc

Shubhada S Kadam

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is a case of false involvement of the offending vehicle in the crime. It is argued that the accident has occurred on 27^th January 2020, whereas the FIR came to the lodged belatedly on 31^st January 2020. It is contended that there is no explanation for lodging the FIR belatedly and, hence, this is a case of false involvement of the vehicle in question. It is further argued that the deceased himself was negligent in riding the motor-cycle and hence, he should be at least held to have been contributed to the accident. She further argued that there is nothing on record to indicate that the deceased was wearing helmet and, therefore, this has added to the severity of the accident and injuries caused therein. Finally on the point of quantum, it is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that only one year’s Income Tax Returns with no other evidence to support the income of the deceased and, hence, at the most, the computation of the compensation could have been done on the notional income of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the claimants supported the impugned judgment and order. It is her submission in the cross-examination that no challenge has been made to the case sought to be made out by the claimants in respect of occurrence of the accident so also the income of the deceased. It is argued that the Tribunal ought to have granted consortium to parents and children and, hence, the claimants are entitled

4/7

53-fa-1832-2024.doc

Shubhada S Kadam

to claim consortium of Rs.48,000/- x 3, I.e Rs.1,44,000/-. It is submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar & Ors., reported in AIR 2020 SC 4424. enhancement can be sought even without filing separate appeal or cross-objection.

Having regard to the nature of the proceeding before the Tribunal, the claimants were required to prove their claim on preponderance of probability. To support the claim, the claimants led evidence essentially in the form of charge-sheet and police papers. There is no dispute about the fact that offence came to be registered against the driver of the offending tempo and there is nothing on record to indicate that he had at any point of time, challenged the said report or filing of the charge-sheet before the competent Court. Even from the crossexamination of the claimants’ witness, nothing elicited in order to discard the case of the claimant about the occurrence of the accident solely due to negligence of the driver of the tempo.

As far as rash and negligent riding of the motor-cycle by the deceased or non wearing of the helmet is concerned, the Insurer has not led any evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate the said case. From the evidence available on record, it cannot be held that the deceased was negligent in any manner in occurrence of the accident.

5/7

53-fa-1832-2024.doc

Shubhada S Kadam

With regard to the quantum of compensation decided by the Tribunal, there is no dispute about the fact that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the evidence in the form of Income Tax Return for a year. There is no bar that the Income Tax Return for the year cannot be considered for the purpose of determination of the compensation. What is necessary for the claimants is to prove the income of deceased, on probability. In any case, what was required to be held was what the deceased was earning and what was his last drawn income. The last drawn income is proved through cogent evidence in the form of Income Tax Returns. In the cross-examination, nothing even is suggested to the claimants/witness with regard to the deceased not having such income. Having regard to this fact, this Court finds no reason to cause interference in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

Insofar as non-payment of consortium is concerned, in view of

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782

(SC) , parental consortium is required to be paid, which has not been paid in respect of three claimants. The claimants, therefore, are entitled to receive compensation of Rs.48,000/- x 3, i.e. Rs.1,44,000/-. In view of Papu Devi (supra), such enhancement can be sought even without filing appeal or cross objection, hence, needs to be allowed.

In the result, following order :

6/7

53-fa-1832-2024.doc

Shubhada S Kadam

O R D E R

(I) The appeal stands dismissed.

(ii) In addition to the compensation determined by the Tribunal, the claimants are entitled for Rs.48,000/- x3, I.e Rs.1,44,000/with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till realisation.

Pending interim/civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

7/7

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the offending tempo was falsely involved in the accident, as urged by the insurer on the ground that the FIR was lodged belatedly (accident on 27th January 2020; FIR lodged on 31st January 2020) with no explanation for the delay.¶34
The court held
On preponderance of probability the claimants proved that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the tempo: the offence was registered against the driver, the charge-sheet was never challenged by him, and nothing elicited in the cross-examination of the claimants' witness discards the claimants' case; the plea of false involvement based on the belated FIR therefore fails.ratio¶40
2.
Whether the deceased himself was negligent in riding the motor-cycle and whether his not wearing a helmet contributed to the severity of the accident and the injuries caused.¶34
The court held
The Insurer led no evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate rash or negligent riding of the motor-cycle by the deceased or non-wearing of helmet; on the evidence available, the deceased cannot be held negligent in any manner in the occurrence of the accident.ratio¶41
3.
Whether, only one year's Income Tax Return being available with no other supporting evidence, the Tribunal ought to have computed the compensation on the notional income of the deceased rather than the returned income.¶34
The court held
There is no bar to considering the Income Tax Return for a year for determination of compensation; income need be proved only on probability, and the last drawn income was proved through cogent evidence in the form of Income Tax Returns, nothing having been suggested in cross-examination that the deceased did not have such income; the Court therefore finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award on quantum.ratio¶45
4.
Whether the claimants are entitled to parental consortium for the deceased's parents and children (Rs.48,000/- x 3) and whether such enhancement can be sought without filing a separate appeal or cross-objection.¶39
The court held
In view of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram (2018 ACJ 2782 SC), parental consortium is required to be paid and was not paid to the three claimants, who are therefore entitled to Rs.48,000/- x 3, i.e. Rs.1,44,000/-; in view of Pappu Deo Yadav (referred to as 'Papu Devi') (supra), such enhancement can be sought even without filing an appeal or cross-objection and is accordingly allowed.ratio¶48