Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shri. Mangilal Bhairaji Kharol And Ors.

CNR No : HCBM010220642016

2026:BHC-AS:42756
24-FA-1044-16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1044 OF 2016
Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd ]
Peninsula Business Park, Tower A, ]
th
15 floor, G. K. Marg, Lower Parel, ]
Mumbai-13 ] … Appellant
Vs.
1. Shri. Mangilal Bhairaji Kharol ]
Age-50 years, Occ: Nil ]
2. Mrs. Deu Mangilal Kharol ]
Age 45 years, Occ. Nil ]
Both R/o. Tungeshwar Building, Room No.4, ]
Uran Karanja Road, at Post Uran, ]
Taluka Uran, District Raigad. ]
3. Mr. Abdul Rahim Ahmed Shaikh ]
Age: Adult, Occ Transport , ]
R/o. Room No.2335, Turbhe Store, ]
Near Turbhe Police Station, Navi Mumbai, ]
District Thane ] ...Respondents
*
Mr. Devendranath S. Joshi Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Vasant N. More a/w. Advocate for Respondent Nos.1
Mr. Saif Kazmi and 2.
*
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
th
DATE : 13 OCTOBER 2026
rsk 1/6
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:34:31

24-FA-1044-16.doc
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for appellant, Mr. More,
learned advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Respondent No.3 is
the owner of the insured vehicle tempo, .
2. Only three grounds raised by learned Advocate which are as
follows:
a. The deceased Bhagwan Kharol was a pillion rider on
motorcycle and tempo Insured with the Appellant
dashed the motorcycle , as a result Bhagwan sustained
injuries and died.
b. According to Mr. Johsi there was contributory
negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. It
is disputed by Mr. More. He submitted that the
deceased was not the driver of the motorcycle but was a
pillion rider and at the most it can be case of composite
negligence.
c. The Tribunal committed wrong in allowing dependency
of 2/3rd and in fact it ought to have been ½ because
rsk 2/6
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:34:31

24-FA-1044-16.doc
deceased was a bachelor.
d. The third ground raised is future prospects granted by
the Tribunal was 50% whereas it ought to have been
40%. This is consented by Mr. More, learned advocate
for the Respondent.
3. According to Mr. Joshi on other heads the compensation is on
higher side.
4. Mr. More, learned advocate for Respondent has consented for
modification in the compensation as it is based on the interpretation
given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
5. It is no doubt true that the deceased was a pillion rider and hence
there is no question of considering his contributory negligence. The
FIR is lodged against the driver of the tempo. Admittedly, appellant
has not examined any witness. As held in Khenyei vs. New India
1
Assurance Co. Ltd. compensation can be claimed against either of the
driver, owner and Insurance Company of one vehicle. In this case it is
claimed against the owner-insured of the offending vehicle. The
submission of Mr. Joshi to that effect is not accepted.
1
2015 (9) SCC 273
rsk 3/6
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:34:31

24-FA-1044-16.doc
6. It is true that the deceased was a bachelor so dependency should
rd
be ½ and not 2/3 . At the same time, considering the notional income
of the deceased, the future prospects should be 40%. At the same time,
on certain head the compensation is to be re-determined. Though Mr.
Johsi tried to canvas that the notional income of Rs.6,000/- was on
higher side after going through the evidence, I do not subscribe to his
submission.
7. The deceased was running grocery shop belonging to his parents
and the Tribunal has considered income as Rs.6,000/- in paragraph 15
of the judgment, I find it reasonable.
8. The Tribunal in paragraph 15 has wrongly considered Rs.3,000/-
towards future prospects which ought to have been 40%. Similarly
there has been miscalculation in considering the personal expenses it
rd
should have been ½ instead of 1/3 .
9. It is re-determined as follows:
Sr.
Nos.
Heads Amount
1. Monthly Income Rs.6,000/-
2. Yearly Income Rs.72,000/-
3. Income Tax - Nil
rsk 4/6
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:34:31

24-FA-1044-16.doc
4. Profession Tax - Nil
Net Income = Rs.72,000/-
Future Prospects (40%) + Rs.28,800/-
Total Income = Rs.1,00,800/-
Personal Deduction (½) - Rs.50,400/-
Dependency = Rs.50,400/-
Multiplier (Age: 24 years)
Loss of Income (Rs.50,400 x18) = Rs.9,07,200/-
Conventional Heads
A. Consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 2)
B. Loss of Estate
C. Funeral Expenses
+
+
+
Rs.80,000/-
Rs.15,000/-
Rs.15,000/-
Expenses for carrying Dead Body + Rs.25,000/-
Total Compensation = Rs.10,42,200/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal = Rs.18,12,000/-
Amount Refundable to the = Rs.7,69,800/-
Appellant
10. Hence the following order is passed :
ORDER
a. Appeal is partly allowed.
b. The compensation granted by Motor Accident Claims
th
Tribunal, Alibag on 19 December 2015 is modified as follows:
rsk 5/6
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:34:31

24-FA-1044-16.doc
i. The Appellant-Insurance Company and Respondent
No.3-Insured jointly and severally are directed to pay
compensation of Rs.10,42,200/- to the Original
Claimant along with the interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of Claim Petition till the date
of payment.
ii. If the Appellant-Insurer has deposited more amount
they are entitled for refund along with accrued
interest and if the Appellant has not deposited entire
amount they are directed to deposit the amount as
mentioned above.
iii. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Claimants are permitted to
withdraw the amount along with accrued interest
subject to amount which they have already
withdrawn.
11. In the light of the above observations, the Appeal is disposed of.
12. Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
[S. M. MODAK, J.]
rsk 6/6
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:34:31
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)