Bombay High Court
Ekbal Khan Ibrahim Khan And Others vs Mohasin Khan S/O Yakub Khan And Others on 16 October, 2024
Author: M. W. Chandwani
Bench: M. W. Chandwani
2024:BHC-NAG:11838
1 19-fa-1697-19j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1697 OF 2019
1. Ekbal Khan Ibrahim Khan,
Aged 49 years, Occ. Labourer
2. Saida Khatun W/o. Ikbal Khan,
Aged about 46 years, Occ. Household
3. Amrin Khatun D/o. Ikbal Khan,
Aged 21 years, Occ. Education
4. Afrin Khatun D/o. Ikbal Khan (minor)
Aged 17 years, Occ. Education
5. Millat Parvin (minor)
Aged 12 years, Occ. Education
6. Rahan Khan S/o. Ikbal Khan (minor)
Aged 16 years, Occ. Education
7. Farhan Khan S/o. Ikbal Khan (minor)
Aged 14 years, Occ. Education
All R/o. Near India Auto Electric Works,
Belora Akola Road, Amravati.
(Respondent nos. 4 to 7 being minor
represented through natural guardian
Resp 1 and 2) . . . APPELLANTS
// V E R S U S //
1. Mausim Khan S/o. Yakub Khan,
R/o. C/o. M. S. Zafar Travels,
Plot No. 27, Vijay Nagar, Chawani,
Nagpur, Tah. And Dist. Nagpur.
2. M/s. Zafar Travels through its
Proprietor Dhanaj Gas Plant,
Plot No. 27, Vijay Nagar, Chawani,
Nagpur, Tah. And Dist. Nagpur.
2 19-fa-1697-19j.odt
3. The National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager,
Jaistambh Chowk, Amravati. . . . RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Aastha Sharma h/f. Shri P. R. Agrawal, Advocate for appellants.
Shri S. D. Sirpurkar, Advocate for respondent no. 3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATED :- 16.10.2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the
learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
2. The brief facts, necessary for adjudication of the case are
as under:-
The claim petition was filed alleging that on 07.05.2004,
at about 01:40 p.m., the deceased -Nehalkhan Ikbalkhan was traveling
in a Minidor bearing registration No. MH-27-P-680 from Prina Hotel
towards Badnera. He was driving the vehicle in slow speed and on the
correct side of the road. When the deceased reached and near Rahul
Transport on Badnera to Akola Road, a Bus bearing registration No.
MH31-W-6460 came from the opposite side in very high speed in a
rash and negligent manner, due to which the tyre of the Bus burst. The
Bus left its side and came on the wrong side of the road and gave a
3 19-fa-1697-19j.odt
dash to the Minidor driven by the deceased. Due to the said dash, the
deceased sustained a head injury and died on the same day. Hence,
the appellants/claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal at
Amravati. The Tribunal granted compensation of only Rs.2 lakhs to
the claimants. Hence, correctness of the impugned award dated
23.11.2006, passed in MACP No. 265/2003 by the MACT, Amravati is
challenged in this appeal by the claimants.
3. Though, various grounds have been raised, the appeal is
mainly pressed on the ground that the Tribunal has not awarded
future prospects and consortium in terms of the verdict of the Apex
Court in the cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 1 and
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and
others 2. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has also applied
wrong multiplier. Instead of applying the multiplier corresponding to
the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier by
considering the age of the dependents of the deceased.
4. The law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra) is not disputed by the learned counsel for
respondent no. 3-Insurer, whereby the Apex Court has held that even a
self-employed person is entitled for future prospects. Further, in the
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680
2 (2018) 18 SCC 130
4 19-fa-1697-19j.odt
case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has
also held that the parents and children of the deceased are also
entitled for filial and parental consortium @ Rs.40,000/- respectively.
5. The law related to application of the multiplier of the
assessed income of the deceased has been enunciated by the Apex
Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 3,
whereby it has now been settled that while applying the multiplier, the
age of the victim is to be considered and not the age of the
dependents. Therefore, multiplier applied by the Tribunal based on
the age of the parents of the deceased is erroneous and the said
finding is required to be set aside.
6. Since, the deceased was an employed person and was 21
years old at the time of his death, therefore, in wake of the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), there shall be an
addition of 40% of the assessed income of the deceased. Likewise,
respondent nos. 1 and 2 being parents of the deceased are entitled for
filial consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each. Respondent nos. 3 to 7 are
siblings of the deceased, therefore, they are also entitled to filial
consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each. The appellants are also entitled for
compensation towards loss of estate and funeral expenses
3 (2009) 6 SCC 121
5 19-fa-1697-19j.odt
@ Rs.15,000/- under each head. Therefore, the appellants are entitled
to the following compensation:-
1. Monthly notional income of the deceased fixed Rs. 3,000/-
2. Annual income of the deceased (Rs.3000/- x 12) Rs. 36,000/-
3. Add - 40% future prospects as per the judgment of (+) Rs. 14,400/-
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017)
16 SCC 680
Rs. 50,400/-
4. Less - ½th deduction as per the judgment of Sarla (-) Rs. 25,200/-
Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6
SCC 121]
5. Salary for multiplier Rs. 25,200/-
6. Multiplier of 18 as per the judgment of Sarla Verma (x) Rs. 4,53,600/-
vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121],
applicable for the age group of 21 to 25 years (Rs.
25,200 X 18)
7. Add : Loss of Consortium : (+) Rs. 2,80,000/-
Rs.40,000/- for each claimant as per the judgment of
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram
[(2018) 18 SCC 130] followed in United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur - [AIR 2020
(SC) 3076] (10% increase as per Pranay Sethi's
Judgment) (Rs.40,000/- x 7)
8. Add : Loss of Estate (+) Rs. 15,000/-
9. Add : Funeral Expenses (+) Rs. 15,000/-
10. Total compensation payable to the claimants Rs. 7,63,600/-
7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
i) The appeal is partly allowed.
6 19-fa-1697-19j.odt
ii) The appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation of
Rs.7,63,600/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of
application till realization of the amount. The amount already paid to
the appellants shall be adjusted towards the amount of award.
iii) The enhanced amount of compensation shall be deposited
within six weeks from today.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.)
RR Jaiswal
Signed by: Mr. Rajnesh Jaiswal
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/10/2024 16:20:29
