Bombay High Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation From ₹10 Lakhs To ₹1.31 Crores For Family Of Deceased Maritime Engineer

It was ruled that the income of highly skilled and qualified professionals with decades of experience cannot be equated to that of manual laborers.

The Court emphasized that the maritime industry commands high premiums due to the specialized and offshore nature of the work, and even in cases where employment is contractual or irregular, the compensation must reflect the professional’s true earning potential rather than a generic, low-wage estimate.

​The Bench of Justice Jitendra Jain observed, “Even for the sake of arguments, if the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company is accepted, then it will be a factor for not accepting the full claim of the claimant but certainly it cannot be a factor for justifying mere Rs.8,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased as estimated by the Tribunal in the facts of the present case…This Court, therefore, rejects outrightly the estimate of Rs. 8,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased as estimated by the Tribunal.”

Advocate J. S. Kini appeared for the Appellants, while Advocates Trupti Bharadi and S. S. Dwivedi appeared for the Respondents.

The original claimant filed this appeal seeking an enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, by its order dated 16 August 2014. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs with interest at 7.5% per annum, calculating the loss of future income based on a meagre notional income of Rs. 8,000/- per month.

The deceased, Rajesh Deshmukh, met with a fatal accident on 26 June 2009 while travelling in a motor jeep that collided with a stationary truck. He was a highly qualified Technical and Maritime Engineer with 20 years of experience and various specialized certifications from the Government of India and international maritime bodies. Despite the production of voluminous documents proving his professional standing, the Tribunal rejected the evidence of substantial earnings and applied the notional income of a manual labourer.

The Appellants contended that the deceased was earning upwards of Rs. 1.59 lakhs per month, supported by testimony from officials of M/s. Samson Maritime Limited and Herald Maritime Services. Conversely, the Insurance Company argued that the deceased was a contractual worker and was not in regular employment, further claiming that the employment contracts produced were not signed by the deceased and thus lacked evidentiary value.

The High Court observed that the Tribunal’s finding of Rs. 8,000/- per month was unsustainable and self-contradictory. The Court noted that the deceased was travelling for work related to M/s. Samson Maritime Limited at the time of the accident, and that the maritime industry inherently commanded higher premiums for offshore expertise.

“Even assuming that there was no agreed contract because the deceased had not signed the employment contract dated 19 June 2009, still the Tribunal ought to have considered that document as a basis for arriving at a just and fair notional income of the deceased…”, it said.

It was further noted that the Tribunal had directed the deduction of Rs. 5 lakhs received from the employer as compensation, while simultaneously holding that no employment relationship existed.

The Court observed, “The engineers working in the maritime field are in high demand because of the nature of their work. It is a known fact that the persons working on vessels irrespective of their nature of work earn much more than the persons doing similar work on land. This is so because of the fact that a person working on the vessel has to be offshore for substantial period of time. Therefore, while considering the nature of income of a person related and connected with the maritime industry same has to be higher than the similar persons earning on the shore. This would be true whether he is in regular employment or working on contract basis for a short period. A professional specialising in a particular branch would always command premium than others. This is true in all fields whether it is medicine, law, accountancy etc.”

Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s assessment and estimated a fair notional income at Rs. 1,25,000/- per month. This figure was arrived at by balancing the evidence of high salary offers against the irregular nature of maritime contracts. After applying a 25% addition for future prospects, a 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses, a 25% deduction for income tax, and a multiplier of 14, the Court recalculated the compensation.

The High Court enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 1,31,95,000/-. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the differential amount with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition within 12 weeks.

The "pay and recovery" order against the Insurance Company was maintained, allowing them to recover the amount from the vehicle owner.

Cause Title: Dr Dhanashri Rajesh Deshmukh and Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Behera and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:19850]

Appearances:

Appellants: Advocates J. S. Kini, Aum Kini, Sapna Krishnappa.

Respondents: Advocates Trupti Bharadi and S. S. Dwivedi

Click here to read/download the Judgment