High CourtsSingle Bench(2025) 12 BOM CK 4266

The General Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Dnyaneshwar Tukaram Jundare & Ors.

Bombay High Court · Decided on 9 December 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
R. M. Joshi, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
First Appeal No. 2037 of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

26 paragraphs · 442 words
1.

By consent of both the sides heard finally at the stage of admission.

2.

This appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act takes exception to Judgment and Award dated 20.02.2024 passed in M.A.C.P. No. 87 of 2018, whereby compensation of Rs.11,40,000/- is granted to claimants with interest @7% p.a. from the date of application till realisation of amount.

3.

This appeal has been filed essentially on the ground that the Tribunal has committed error in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that admittedly the deceased was aged about 30 years and was unmarried and was not having more number of family members dependent upon him. In such circumstances, in the view of Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr.1, deduction towards personal expenses be considered as 1/2 instead of 1/3.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/original claimants opposed the appeal.

5.

In case of Sarla Verma (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in case of death of unmarried person, half of the income should be treated towards his personal expenses. Of course in some other judgments it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that where the members of family of deceased are more, even an unmarried person is expected to spent more on them than self. Here in this case however there are only two dependents on him. Hence, the judgment in case of the Sarla Verma (supra) would have square application. Consequently, it is held that learned Tribunal has committed error in deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses instead of 1/2. This needs correction. The appeal, therefore, stands partly allowed.

6.

The Claimants would be entitled for compensation which is as under:

ParticularsRs.Amount
IncomeRs.6,000/-
Future Prospects 40%Rs.2,400/-
TotalRs.8,400/-
Dependency (2 dependents) - 1/2Rs.4,200/-
Multiplier 15 (4,200 X 12 X 15)Rs.7,56,000/-
Consortium (48,000 X 2)Rs.96,000/-
Funeral ExpensesRs.18,000/-
Loss of EstateRs.18,000/-
TotalRs.8,88,000/-
Compensation awarded by TribunalRs.11,40,000/-
Refund amountRs.2,52,000/-
7.

In view of above, I pass following order:

ORDER

i.

The appeal is allowed.

ii.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 /claimants are entitled for amount of Rs.8,88,000/- @7.5% interest per annum from date of filing claim petition till realisation.

iii.

The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / claimants shall deposit the refund amount of Rs.2,52,000/- along with accrued interest thereon before the Tribunal within six weeks from the receipt of the order.

iv.

The claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the respondents along with accrued interest thereon.

8.

The appeal is disposed of. All pending applications if any also disposed of.

Footnotes

  1. 1.AIR 2009 SC 3104