United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Moharsingh Atramsingh Rajput and Ors.

These appeals arise out of same accident and involved similar question of facts and law and hence, by consent of both sides heard and decided together finally at the stage of admission.

¶12

An accident occurred on 30^th October, 2014, when both the deceased persons were riding motorcycle bearing No. MH-06/BH8523 and was dashed by pick up jeep bearing No. MH-08/W-0602. In the said accident, they sustained serious injuries and

¶13

REKHA PRAKASH PATIL

¶14

Digitally signed by REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Date: 2026.02.21 12:31:21 +0530

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

14-FA-1090-2024+.DOC

¶17

succumbed thereto. Dependents of both the deceased persons filed Motor Accident Claim Petition bearing Nos. 40 of 2015 and 41 of 2015. They claimed dependency on the ground that the deceased was employed and earning. The Tribunal partly allowed both claims. Hence, this Appeal.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the appellant also takes exception to the Judgment and Order on the ground that the Tribunal has granted excessive compensation on various heads, such as, consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses etc. Learned Counsel for the claimants submits that the compensation granted even on these heads is not excessive.

¶19

The calculation even if are re-considered, there is no much difference in the both amounts in order to cause interference.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that in MACP No. 40 of 2015, the Tribunal has committed error in not considering the evidence on record which does not indicate that any amount by working overtime was earned by the deceased in his employment. It is her submission that inspite of recording the finding with regard to the earning of the deceased to the extent of Rs.6000/- per month, the total amount of Rs.7000/- came to be considered for the purpose of calculating the loss of dependency. She further argued that the Tribunal also erred in granting future prospects at 50% instead of 40% in view of the evidence on record. Similar is the argument in respect of another appeal.

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

14-FA-1090-2024+.DOC

¶23

Learned Counsel for the claimant supported the impugned Judgment and Award.

¶24

There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the offending vehicle was involved in occurrence of the accident. Both rider and pillion rider on the motorcycle were injured and succumbed to the said injuries. Offence came to be registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. Insofar as the income of the deceased is concerned, the claimants are required to substantiate the same on preponderance of probability. Learned Tribunal in MACP No. 40 of 2015 has held that the deceased would have earned Rs.6,000/- per month, however, for the purpose of computation of the loss of dependency an amount Rs.7000/- is considered assuming that he would have earn Rs.1000/-by way of overtime. Record indicates that there is no evidence to show that any overtime was earned by the deceased. The Tribunal, therefore, has committed error in considering the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.7000/- instead of Rs.6000/-. Rest of the arguments sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellant are not supported by the evidence on record. There is no specific evidence to indicate that the deceased persons were not in regular employment. The learned Tribunal, therefore, committed no error in granting future prospects to the extent of 50%.

¶25

The claimants are entitled for following compensation.

¶26

Page 3 of 5

¶27

14-FA-1090-2024+.DOC

¶28

Particulars	Amount
Salary Add: Future Prospects 50% =	Rs.6000/- p.m. Rs.3000/- Rs.9000/-
Less: Future prospects 50% =	Rs.4500/- Rs.4500/-
Multiplier	1218
Total loss of dependency	Rs.9,72,000/-
Add: Loss of love and affection	Rs.1,00,000/-
Add: Loss of love and care	Rs.1,00,000/-
Add: Funeral expenses	Rs. 25,000/-
Add: Loss of estate	Rs. 10,000/-
Award stands modified to	Rs.12,07,000/-
Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Rs.13,70,000/-
Excess amount of	Rs. 1,63,000/-

¶29

The Appellant-Insurance Company is entitled for the excess amount of Rs. 1,63,000/-.

¶30

In view of above, I pass following order.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(i) Appeal No. 1090 of 2024 stands partly allowed.

¶33

(ii) Appeal No. 1175 of 2024 stands dismissed.

¶34

(iii) The Appellant-Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,63,00/- along with proportionate interest out of the deposited amount.

¶35

Page 4 of 5

¶36

14-FA-1090-2024+.DOC

¶37

iv) The Claimant’s are permitted to withdraw balance amount along with proportionate interest. (v) The statutory amount along with interest be transmitted to the Tribunal. Parties are at liberty to withdraw it, as per Rule.

¶38

(vi)Pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶39

Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

¶40

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

¶41

Page 5 of 5

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Moharsingh Atramsingh Rajput and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Moharsingh Atramsingh Rajput and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Asha Suresh Chavan and Ors. vs Mr. Milind Prabhakar Kole and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Shri. Tushar Arvind Raje and Anr.

Sama Anas Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Madhukar Pandurang Adling and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shamshad Ajmer Ansari vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shamshad Ajmer Ansari vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.