Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thane (West) vs Smt. Vandana Ashok Patil and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thane (West) vs Smt. Vandana Ashok Patil and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; Claimants entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 40,000/- (parental consortium for Claimant No. 2) with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization; Claimant to pay additional court fee as per Rules; statutory deposit with interest to be transferred to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal failed to take into account negligence on the part of the deceased in occurrence of the accident (contributory fault of the deceased). +2 more

Court's answer

The Insurer led no other evidence to hold that the deceased was responsible for causing the accident; the offence was admittedly registered against the rider of the offending motorcycle, so no fault is attributed to the deceased and the appeal on the negligence plea fails.

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal rightly relied on the evidence of the employer together with the documents on record regarding the employment and income of the deceased; its findings (including the recording of facts in paragraph no. 20 of the Tribunal's judgment) do not deserve any interference.

Key takeaways

The Tribunal had not granted parental consortium to Claimant No. 2; this Court holds Claimant No. 2 entitled to receive it, and accordingly awards additional compensation.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (R.M. Joshi, J.), First Appeal No. 1093 of 2025, decided 26th February 2026: An insurer's appeal against a Tribunal award of Rs. 48,65,362/- with 8% p.a. interest in MACP No. 808 of 2021, arising from a fatal collision of 14th July 2021 between the deceased's motorcycle (MH-04-AW-3006) and motorcycle MH-48-AG-9289 owned and insured by the original opponents, was dismissed. Held: (i) no negligence of the deceased was established — the offence was admittedly registered against the rider of the offending motorcycle and the Insurer led no other evidence to hold the deceased responsible; (ii) the Tribunal's income assessment, founded on the employer's evidence and supporting documents (findings recorded in its paragraph no. 20), deserved no interference; (iii) Claimant No. 2, denied parental consortium by the Tribunal, was held entitled to it, attracting additional compensation of Rs. 40,000/- with 8% p.a. interest from the date of the Claim Petition, subject to payment of additional court fee, and with the statutory deposit (with interest) directed to be transferred to the Tribunal.

35.FA 1093 of 2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1093 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8665 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1093 OF 2025

Reliance General Insurance ...Appellant Co. Ltd. Thane (West)

Versus

Smt. Vandana Ashok Patil & Ors. ...Respondents

Mrs. Kalpana Trivedi for the Appellant. Mrs. Rina Kundu for Respondents/Claimants.

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 26^th FEBRUARY, 2026

P.C. :

By consent of both parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.

This Appeal filed by the Insurer takes exception to the judgment and award dated 13^th November 2024 passed in MACP No. 808 of 2021 granting compensation of Rs. 48,65,362/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of Claim Petition till realization of the amount.

It is a case of the claimants that the deceased was riding

1

Mandar M.

35.FA 1093 of 2025.doc

motorcycle bearing No. MH-04-AW-3006 on 14^th July 2021 and when he reached to the spot of the accident, other motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-48-AG-9289 owned and insured by the original opponents came in high and excessive speed and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of the incident, deceased sustained injuries and succumbed thereto. Tribunal allowed the claim hence this appeal.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submit that the Tribunal has failed to take into account negligence on the part of the deceased in occurrence of the accident. It is her further submission that the Tribunal has considered income of the deceased on higher side which has resulted into grant of compensation excessively.

Learned Counsel for the Claimant supported impugned judgment and award however, sought enhancement to the extent of consortium not been granted to Claimant No. 2.

There is no dispute about the fact that in the accident in question, deceased lost his life. Further admittedly, the offense came to be registered against rider of the offending motorcycle. There is no other evidence led by the Insurer in order to hold that the deceased was responsible for causing of the accident.

Insofar as the amount of compensation determined by the

2

Mandar M.

35.FA 1093 of 2025.doc

Tribunal, Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the evidence of the employer coupled with documents placed on record to support the claim of the Claimants with regard to the employment and income of the deceased. The observations made by the Tribunal and recording of finding of the fact in paragraph no. 20 does not deserve any interference.

The Tribunal however, has not granted parental consortium to Claimant No. 2. The Claimant No.2 therefore, be entitled to receive the same. As a result of above discussion, following order is passed:

ORDER

a. Appeal stands dismissed.

b. The Claimants however are entitled to receive additional compensation of Rs. 40,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization of the amount.

c. Claimant shall pay additional Court fee as per Rules.

d. Statutory deposit with interest be transferred to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with the law.

(R.M. JOSHI, J.)

3

Mandar M.