High Court · 2025
Facts
1443-22 FA.odt 1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO.1443 OF 20221.Jafarsab S/o. Gafursab Shaikh (Hulsure),Age:L 50 years, Occu.: Nil,2.Daulatbee W/o. Jafarsab Shaikh (Halsure)Age: 45 years, Occu.: Household,Both R/o. Valandi Tq. Deoni,Dist. Latur.... Appellants (Orig. Claimants)Versus1.Mallikarjun S/o. Baburao Harge,Age: 34 years, Occu.: Driver & Business,(Owner & Driver of Jeep No.KA-36-M-2643)R/o. 9-112, near Church,Village Mangalgi, Tq. Humnabad, Dist. Bidar (Karnataka)2.Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.Through its Branch Manager,Off. Office No.748, First Floor,Tulasi Chamber, in front of SFS School,Near Akashwani, Jalna Road,Aurangabad. … Respondents......Mr. Ram S. Shinde, Advocate (through V.C.) for AppellantsMr. N.K. Tungar, Advocate for Respondent No.1Mr. Swapnil S. Rathi, Advocate for Respondent No.2......CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON: 18 JULY 2025PRONOUNCED ON: 29 JULY 2025 1443-22 FA.odt 2JUDGMENT :-1.The instant appeal is filed by the original claimants, whoare dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 14.10.2021passed by the M.A.C.T., Udgir, in M.A.C.P. No. 09 of 2019,granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,47,600/- withinterest at the rate of 9% per annum.2.The present appeal is precisely for enhancement ofcompensation. Apprising this Court about background of theaccident claim, it is submitted that on 11.11.2017, deceasedMainoddin @ Khaja, was travelling on motorcycle bearingNo.MH-12-LG6922 over Udggir-Deoni road. At around 4:00p.m., a dash was given to his motorcycle by a Trax jeep bearingregistration number KA-36-M-2643, causing him fatal injuries, towhich he ultimately succumbed.3.According to the claimants, at the time of the accident, thedeceased Mainoddin @ Khaja was a healthy and hearty youngperson, aged 21 years. That, He worked as Welder and earnedRs.10,000/- per month. That his earnings were the sole sourceof income for the claimants, who are his parents, and on accountof his accidental death, they have lost that source of income.
Legal Reasoning
1443-22 FA.odt 511.Considering the above facts and submissions, and uponperusal of the record, there appears to be no serious challenge tothe allegation of rash and negligent driving on the part of thedriver/owner of the jeep. Only issue raised before this Court inappeal is the quantum of compensation.12.This Court finds no fault in considering the notionalincome as Rs.6,000/-, as there is no iota of evidence aboutdeceased was earning Rs.9,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month soas to consider and grant such quantum.13.As regards the compensation awarded by the Tribunalunder various heads, a perusal of the impugned judgment andaward reveals that the computations and calculations made bythe learned Tribunal are reflected in paragraph 23 of theimpugned judgment. It is noticed that the Tribunal has notawarded any amount under the heads of ‘loss of estate’ and ‘lossof future prospects’. Even a meagre amount appears to havebeen awarded under the heads of ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘loss ofconsortium’.14. In view of the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi (Supra) andMagma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), claimants are 1443-22 FA.odt 6entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each, i.e. 80,000/- plus 10%(Rs.8,000/-) which comes to Rs. 88,000/- towards loss ofconsortium. Rs. 15,000/- plus 10% (Rs.1,500/-), which comes toRs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- plus 10%(Rs.1,500/-), which comes to Rs.16,500/- towards funeralexpenses. So also in view of the ratio laid down in above rulings,claimants are entitled for future prospects. Considering that theage of deceased at the time of accident was 21 years, 40% needsto be awarded towards future prospectus.15.In view of the aforesaid discussion, claimants are entitledfor following compensation.HeadAmount (Rs.)1Annual Income (Rs.6,000 x 12) Rs.72,000/- 2.Future Prospects 40% i.e. 28,800 (72,000 + 28,800) Rs.1,00,800/-3.(-) 1/2 deduction towards personal expenses (1,00,800 – 50,4000/-) Rs.50,400/-4.Multiplier 18(52,400 x 18 ) Rs.9,07,200/- 5.Non-pecuniary Losses:-Loss consortium = Rs.88,000/-Loss of Estate = Rs.16,500/-Funeral Expenses = Rs.16,500/- Rs. 1,21,000/-6.Total compensation awarded Rs. 10,28,200/-7.(-) Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 8,47,600/8.Enhanced Compensation Rs. 1,80,600/-
Arguments
1443-22 FA.odt 3Hence, under various heads, they set up claim ofRs.50,00,000/-.4.According to the claimants, at the time of the accident,respondent No.1 was the owner and driver of the offending jeepand was the sole negligent in causing the accident. The vehiclewas insured with Respondent No.2, and both Respondents No.1and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation5.After issuing notices, Respondent No. 1 failed to file awritten statement; therefore, the Tribunal ordered the matter toproceed without itThe insurance company filed its written statement atExhibit 15 and resisted the claim by denying negligence on thepart of the driver/owner of the jeep.6.After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, theTribunal passed the above judgment and award, therebygranting compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,47,600/-7.Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits thatthe Tribunal erred in holding the notional income of thedeceased to be Rs. 6,000/-. In fact, claimants have expected atleast Rs.9,000/- to 10,000/- per month. That, the deceased was 1443-22 FA.odt 4doing welding work, which is skilled work. He further submitsthat, in view of the ratio laid down in National InsuranceCompany Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC680, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram aliasChuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, no amount hasbeen granted under the heads of ‘future prospects’ and ‘loss ofestate’. Even a meagre amount has been awarded under theheads of ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘loss of consortium8.Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1,justified and supported the findings and conclusions arrived atby the Tribunal and prayed for no interference in the same.9.Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2/insurance companypointed out that there is no evidence that the deceased wasworking as a welder or that he was earning Rs. 10,000/-.Therefore, according to him, the Tribunal was justified in fixingthe notional income at Rs. 6,000/- per month. However, learnedcounsel for respondent no.2/insurance company fairly submitsthat amount deserves to be granted for future prospects as perratio laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).10.Heard both the sides. Perused the impugned judgmentand award.
Decision
1443-22 FA.odt 716.In the result, following order is passed :- ORDER(i)Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs. (ii)Impugned judgment and award dated 14.10.2021, passedby the District Judge-2 and Member of M.A.C.T., Udgir inM.A.C.P. No.09 of 2019 is modified.(iii)Respondent no.3-insurance company to pay enhancedcompensation of Rs.1,80,600/- to claimants within 12 weeksfrom today along with interest @ 9% per annum from the dateof registration of claim petition till its realization.(iv)Modified award be prepared accordingly.(v)Claimants to pay court fees on enhanced compensation asper rules.(vi)On deposit of the amount by Insurance Company,appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw the same.ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JUDGES P Rane