Oral Judgment:

1. Admit. In view of narrow controversy involved, the appeal is taken up for final disposal with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging Judgment and Award dated 12.02.2021 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 88/2014 by Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Islampur, District Sangli. Under the said impugned Judgment and Award, the Appellant-Insurance Company along with owner and driver of the offending vehicle, has been directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.13,90,000/- inclusive no-fault liability to the Claimants with interest @ 7 % per annum from the date of claim application till realization.

3. Few facts necessary for disposal of this appeal, are as under.

                   3.1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are Claimants who are wife and son of deceased Pandurang Gopal Dabhole. The claim is filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’ for short).

                   3.2. The case of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in short, is as under. That on 24/05/2014, when deceased was returning from Karad to Peth on his motorcycle, the offending Bolero Jeep (KA-23-M-9880) came in rash and negligent manner and gave dash to the deceased from back side. That the deceased suffered serious injury to his head in the accident, who was admitted to hospital; however, he succumbed to the injuries during treatment. That the offending vehicle was insured with the Appellant-Insurance company. That the deceased was doing business of a Mandap Decoration and catering, who was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month and he was only earning member in the family. Compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- was claimed with interest @ 18% per annum.

                   3.3. The Appellant-Insurance Company filed written statement, inter alia, disputing the quantum of compensation claimed by the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and also raised other defenses.

4. Learned counsel Mr. Gatne appearing for the Appellant- Insurance Company submitted that the appeal is restricted to submissions on quantum of compensation. He submitted as under. That the income assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.15,000/- per month is on higher side. That the entries in the savings account of the deceased, relied upon by the Tribunal are in respect of month of May 2014 and it only indicates that in that month the amounts were deposited and the same would not necessarily reflect consistent income of the deceased. That the evidence of Gramvikas Adhikari who deposed that the deceased had deposited tax for Mandap Decoration business would only indicate that a business was being conducted but it cannot be taken as any indication for figure of earning. That the certificate of Sarpanch showing that the deceased was doing business of Mandap Decoration for last 30 years, is also not in clear support of the figure claimed. That the wife of the deceased has admitted that no document is possessed by her in respect of purchase of generator and electric material for Mandap Decoration and that she did not know whether deceased maintained the accounts of business. That she has also admitted that deceased was not doing catering business personally. On these grounds it is contended that impugned award is not sustainable.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Kulkarni appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Claimants supported the impugned order contending inter alia that the statement of the deceased’s saving account at Ex. 55 indicates consistent deposit of cash from April 2013 till May 2014 and therefore the figures do indicate consistent inflow of cash indicating running business by the deceased. He further submitted that on appreciation of evidence of other witnesses, including Branch Manager of the concerned Patsantha and the Gramvikas Adhikari, the documents considered by the Tribunal are duly proved. He further submitted that future prospects of 10% and loss of consortium for both claimants is necessary to be awarded.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. Perusal of Ex. 55, which is the statement of the deceased saving account, shows total cash deposit of Rs.5,41,563/- over a period of 13 months prior to his death in the accident. The bank statement is proved by the Branch Manager. If the said amount is divided into 13 months, an amount of over Rs. 40,000/- per month appears to be deposited in the account of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has considered the credit entries in the savings account along with the certificate of the Sarpanch and the evidence of Gramvikas Adhikari about the deceased paying tax. From this evidence discussed by the Tribunal in paragraph Nos. 18 and 19, it can be seen that there was sufficient material before the Court to indicate that deceased was doing business of Mandap Decoration and there were sufficient cash inflow in his savings account. The figure indicated above based on credit entries is already reduced by the Tribunal to Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, the possibility of expenses incurred by the deceased on the business is also taken care of.

8. The admissions by wife of deceased about non-availability of documents about generator and electric material or absence of knowledge about maintenance of account book etc. cannot be held as fatal, in my considered view, considering the rural background of the Claimants and his family, who resided in village Peth, Taluka Walwa, District Sangli.

9. In that view of the matter, I do not find this to be a fit case to interfere in the amount of income assessed by the Tribunal.

10. Perusal of the paragraph No.20 of the judgment indicates that the heads of loss of consortium is only considered for one of the Claimants. The accident is of May 2014 which is prior to October 2017 when the figures were rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. Therefore, the figures as fixed in Pranay Shethi (Supra) read with Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Nanu Ram and Ors. 2018 (8) SCJ 338, can be safely applied for other Claimants also. In that view of the matter, the loss of consortium of Rs. 40,000/- needs to be awarded to both claimants.

11. Considering the age of deceased at the time of accident, which was admittedly 55 years, following the dictum in paragraph No. 59.4 (SCC Version) of Pranay Shethi (Supra), and further considering that the deceased was self-employed, future prospects of 10% must be awarded.

12. Mr. Gatne opposed the submission about increase of the compensation amount in absence of cross-appeal / cross-objection. He further submitted that if the Court is inclined to grant enhancement to the Respondents-Claimants, the Insurance Company should not be saddled with interest on the enhanced amount because it is being claimed today and there is no explanation why cross- appeal / cross-objection is not filed from the impugned Award till today. He submitted that otherwise, the cross-objections were required to be filed within a period of limitation after admission/notice of final hearing. He relied on following judgments in support of his submission about interest :

                   i. Ranjana Prakash Vs. The Divisional Manager (2011) 14 SCC 639.

                   ii. Dharampal & Ors. Vs. U.P. Road Transport Corporation (2008) 12 SCC 208.

                   iii. Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 413.

13. Learned counsel for the Respondents-Claimants, however submitted that they are entitled to the interest also on enhanced amount from date of claim application.

14. So far as the aspect of enhancement to Claimants in absence of cross-objections or cross-appeal is concerned, it is important to note that in Surekha w/o Rajendra Nakhate and Ors. Vs. Santosh s/o Namdeo Jadhav and Others (2021) 16 SCC 467, three judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

                   “1. Leave granted. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 4-1-2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in First Appeal No. 2564 of 2016, whereby the High Court, even though agreed with the stand of the appellants that just compensation amount ought to be Rs. 49,85,376/- (Rupees forty-nine lakhs eighty-five thousand three hundred seventy-six only), however, declined to grant enhancement merely on the ground that the appellants had failed to file cross- appeal.

                   2. By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants.”

                   (emphasis supplied)

15. Recently the above view has been followed by learned Single Judge of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rukmini Deepak and Others 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2589 by considering many other judgments including that of (i) A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its General Manager Vs. M. Ramadevi (2008) 3 SCC 379, (ii) United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kunti Binod Pande and Others 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 5606, (iii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vaishali Harish Devare and Others 2013 (1) Mh.L.J. 411, (iv) Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Pune Vs. Nelesh Suresh Bhandari and Others 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 4749, (v) Solapur Municipal Corporation and Anr Vs. Mrs. Rupali Rahul Pawar and Ors. judgment of this Court passed in First Appeal No. 476 Of 2016 dated 29.08.2023.

16. Therefore it is clear that the Court is under obligation to award just compensation and there is no embargo in enhancing the compensation in absence of appeal or Cross Objection by the Respondents-Claimants.

                   About interest payable on enhanced amount to Claimants in absence of cross-appeal / cross-objections

17. However, the present appeal raises an issue for consideration - “From which date interest should be awarded in favour of the Claimants, when the amount is being enhanced in appeal by the Insurance Company, in absence of cross-appeal or cross-objection ?”

18. In Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering an appeal filed by the Claimant for enhancement of the amount. While dealing with the aspect of interest payable, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph No. 31 as under:

                   “31. The High Court enhanced the amount of compensation by Rs 14,70,000 and awarded interest @ 7.5% p.a. but directed that the interest of 7.5% shall be paid only from the date of filing of the appeal. This is also incorrect. We are constrained to observe that the High Court was not right in awarding interest on the enhanced amount only from the date of filing of the appeal. Section 171 of the Act reads as follows:

                   "171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed.- Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf."

                   Normally interest should be granted from the date of filing of the petition and if in appeal enhancement is made the interest should again be from the date of filing of the petition. It is only if the appeal is filed after an inordinate delay by the claimants, or the decision of the case has been delayed on account of negligence of the claimant, in such exceptional cases the interest may be awarded from a later date. However, while doing so, the Tribunals/High Courts must give reasons why interest is not being paid from the date of filing of the petition. Therefore, we direct that the entire amount of compensation including the amount enhanced by us shall carry an interest of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment/deposit of the amount.”

                   (Emphasis supplied)

19. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that it is only if appeal is filed after inordinate delay by the Claimants, the interest may be awarded from a later date by recording reasons.

20. Way back in July 2003, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. Mahadeva Shetty & Anr (2003) 7 SCC 197, while considering the factors for computation of amount of ‘just compensation’ has held that it can not be a windfall or bonanza or source of profit. Paragraph 15 of the said judgment reads as under.

                   “15. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which to it appears to be "just". It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. Bodily injury is nothing but a deprivation which entitles the claimant to damages. The quantum of damages fixed should be in accordance with the injury. An injury may bring about many consequences like loss of earning capacity, loss of mental pleasure and many such consequential losses. A person becomes entitled to damages for mental and physical loss, his or her life may have been shortened or that he or she cannot enjoy life, which has been curtailed because of physical handicap. The normal expectation of life is impaired. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just", a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness. If it is not so, it cannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC.)”

                   (Emphasis supplied)

21. Thereafter in December 2007, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava (2008) 2 SCC 763, while interpreting the word ‘just compensation’ has held that it means an amount which is just and equitable ‘rather than a bonanza or source of profit’. Paragraph No. 25 of the said judgment reads as under:

                   “25. The expression “just” must also be given its logical meaning. Whereas it cannot be a bonanza or a source of profit but in considering as to what would be just and equitable, all facts and circumstances must be taken into consideration.”

                   (Emphasis supplied)

22. Keeping in mind the aforesaid interpretation of just compensation, in my considered view, the fact of the Claimants not filing cross appeal or cross objection for a long period of 4 years in the present case, must be taken into consideration, while granting interest on enhanced amount.

23. In the present case, firstly, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Claimants) have admittedly not filed cross-appeal/cross-objection at all. Admittedly, notice of final disposal was issued on 29.08.2022 and therefore the limitation to file cross-objection is over long ago. Similarly, the impugned judgment and award is dated 12.02.2021 and therefore, limitation to file cross-appeal seeking enhancement is also over long ago. Therefore, as on today, there is delay of about 4 years for seeking enhancement. In such circumstances, in my view, even if enhancement is being considered and granted in favour of Claimants, it would not be fair to grant interest on enhanced amount from the date of application. In absence of cross appeal or cross objection and the inordinate delay involved, ‘interest on the enhanced amount’ cannot be granted from the date of application and it will have to be granted from today.

24. In the net result, the First Appeal and pending stay application filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company are dismissed. The Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (Claimants) are held entitled to receive from Appellant Insurance Company, an amount of Rs. 15,62,000/- as per calculation below.