Bombay High Court
Sayeeda Begum & Ors vs M A Osman & Ors on 8 December, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 937 fa 1250.04.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1250 OF 2004
1. Sayeeda Begum w/o Shaikh Hameed,
Age: 45 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Jintur, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani.
2. Shaikh Maroof s/o Shaikh Hameed,
Age: 22 years, Occ. Education,
Resident of as above.
3. Shaikh Wajed s/o Shaikh Hameed,
Age: 20 years, Occ. Education,
Resident of as above.
4. Nikhat Fatema d/o Shaikh Hameed,
Age: 18 years, Occ. Nil,
Resident of as above.
5. Shaikh Anwar s/o Shaikh Hameed,
Age: 17 years minor u/g. Of real
mother (Appellant No.1) i.e.
Sayeeda Begum w/o Shaikh Hameed ... Appellants
Vs.
1. M.A. Osman s/o M.A. Sattar,
Age: Major, Occ: Business,
R/o Phulang Street, Nizamabad (A.P.)
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
through its Branch Managar,
Parbhani.
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
through its Branch Managar,
Parbhani. ... Respondents
----
Advocate for Appellant : A N Ansari
Advocate for Respondents: D S Kulkarni for R2 & S M Godsay for R4
----
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
DATE : 08-12-2016.
2 937 fa 1250.04.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. In the present appeal respondent no.1 i.e. owner of the
insured vehicle is yet to be served. The record shows that, he was
proceeded ex parte even before the tribunal and, though, the
attempts seems to have been made by the appellants to serve him,
he could not be served. Today, when the matter was called for
hearing, it is revealed that, the appellants are seeking enhancement
in the amount of compensation and the insurance companies have
not disputed their liability to pay the amount of compensation. In
the circumstances, it does not appear to me that presence of
respondent no.1, would be required for deciding the present appeal
on merits. In the circumstances, service on respondent no.1 is
exempted and the matter is taken up for final disposal with consent
of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has
challenged the impugned judgment and award only on the point
that the tribunal has not awarded any amount towards non-
pecuniary damages. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is
revealed that, the tribunal has in fact not awarded any amount
towards non-pecuniary damages.
3. Shri D.S. Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.2 and Shri S.M. Godsay, the learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.4, do not dispute the legal position
3 937 fa 1250.04.odt
that, the non-pecuniary damages need to be awarded in the
petitions filed by the legal representatives claiming compensation in
accidental death cases.
4. In view of the submissions so made, the present appeal
can be disposed of by awarding adequate amount towards the non-
pecuniary damages to the applicant. It is not in dispute that
appellant/claimant no.1 is the widow of the deceased, whereas,
appellant claimant nos.2, 3 and 5 are the sons of the deceased and
appellant/claimant
ig no.4 is the daughter of the deceased.
Considering, the relationship of the claimants with the deceased, I
deem it appropriate to award a consolidated sum of Rs. One Lakh to
the claimants towards loss of estate and love and affection and
other non-pecuniary damages i.e. funeral expenses etc. The award
be modified accordingly. The enhanced amount is made payable to
the applicants with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date
of filing of application till its realisation jointly and severally from
the respondents.
(P.R. BORA)
JUDGE
mub
