Bombay High Court
Sayyad Usman Sayyad Burhan And Anr vs Gajanan Gopichand Samale And Anr on 13 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:21943
3292-19-FA.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.3292 OF 2019
1. Sayyad Usman S/o. Sayyed Burhan,
Age: 57 years, Occu.: Labour,
R/o. Kok, Tq. Jintur,
Dist. Parbhani.
2. Sayyad Nasreen W/o. Sayyad Usman,
Age: 50 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Kok, Tq. Jintur,
District Parbhani. ... Appellants
Versus
1. Gajanan S?o. Gopichand Samale,
Age: Major, Occu.: Jeep Owner,
R/o. Takali (Kumbhkarna),
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Branch: Parbhai through its Manager,
Daulat Building, Shivaji Chowk,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani. ... Respondents
......
Mr. Mahesh P. Kale, Advocate for Appellants
Mr. V.N. Upadhye, Advocate for Respondent No.2
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 08 AUGUST, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 13 AUGUST, 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award dated
30.10.2017 passed by the Chairman, M.A.C.T, Parbhani in M.A.C.P.
No.319 of 2012, appellants/original claimants have preferred the
3292-19-FA.odt
{2}
present appeal, primarily on the ground of the quantum awarded by the
Tribunal on account of accidental the death of their minor son Sayyad
Abdul Rehaman.
FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:
2. On 22.12.2011, deceased Sayyad Abdul Rehman was proceeding
on a bicycle to his home after his school was over. At around 01:30
p.m., he was given dash from back side by jeep bearing registration No.
MH-38/F-0183, causing a fatal head injury to which he succumbed. The
appellants/parents of the deceased, filed an accident claim under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act vide M.A.C.P. No. 319 of 2012. On
notice, present respondent No. 2/insurance company appeared and
contested the claim, denying negligence on the part of the jeep driver
and raising the grounds of breach of policy conditions as well as non-
availability of a valid and effective driving licence.
3. After considering the respective cases, the learned Tribunal held
that the driver of the jeep was rash and negligent, and found him
responsible for the accident. The defence of insurance company about
the breach of policy and non-availability of valid and effective driving
licence was discarded. Considering the age of the deceased, by
adverting to the law laid down in R.K. Malik and Another Vs. Kiran Pal
3292-19-FA.odt
{3}
and Others, 2009 (3) (T.A.C.) 1 (S.C.) and Lata Wadhawa and others
Vs. State of Bihar and others , II (2001) ACC 316 (SC), claim was partly
allowed directing opponent Nos.1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay
compensation of Rs.3,35,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum vide
judgment and award dated 30.10.2017.
4. The appellants/original claimants are dissatisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribnal and have sought
enhancement by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Meena Devi vs. Nanu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and Others ,
(2023) 1 SCC 204.
5. While countering the above submission, learned counsel for
respondent No.2/insurance company has also placed reliance on Meena
Devi (supra), so also placed written notes of arguments on record and
would orally submit that, there is no evidence here about the deceased
child to be capable of fetching future income.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and learned
counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company. None appeared for
respondent No.1, though served.
3292-19-FA.odt
{4}
7. On perusal of the impugned judgment and award, it is noticed
that the rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver has not been
seriously challenged. Even the defence set up by the insurance company
regarding breach of policy conditions or non-availability of a valid and
effective driving licence has not been substantiated. Even the finding
regarding the same is not shown to be erroneous. Therefore, the only
issue remains for consideration is the quantum.
8. In view of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for
the respondent/insurance company, although there is no specific finding
regarding the entitlement to future prospects, it is undisputed that the
unfortunate child was returning home on bicycle after attending the
school. This indicates that he was pursuing his education, and therefore,
it is reasonable to hold that he would have completed his studies and
might have earned in one or the other way. Accordingly, the claimants
are entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future income.
9. In view of the ratio laid down in Meena Devi (supra), wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court applied a standard quantum of compensation
for minors, the same principle can be applied in the present case as
well. In the facts of the present appeal, the deceased was minor boy
aged 12 years studying in 8th Standard, who died in the accident.
3292-19-FA.odt
{5}
Therefore, by applying notional income of Rs.30,000/- per annum,
including future prospects, and applying the multiplier of 15 for loss of
dependency, the total amount comes to Rs.4,50,000/-.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, claimants are entitled for
following compensation.
Head Compensation Amount
1. Notional Income including future prospect Rs.30,000/-
2. Multiplier 15 Rs.4,50,000/-
[Rs. 30,000- x 15]
3. Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/-
(as awarded by Tribunal)
3. Funeral expenses. Rs.10,000/-
(As awarded by the Tribunal)
6. Total compensation awarded Rs.5,60,000/-
7. (-) Compensation awarded by M.A.C.T. Rs.3,35,000/-
8. Enhanced Compensation Rs.2,25,000/-
((5,60,000 - 3,35,00/-)
11. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed with proportionate costs.
(ii) Impugned judgment and award dated 30.10.2017, passed
by Chairman, M.A.C.T. Parbhani, in M.A.C.P. No.319 of
2012 is modified.
3292-19-FA.odt
{6}
(iii) Respondent no.2-insurance company to pay enhanced
compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- to claimants within six
weeks from today along with interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of registration of claim petition till its
realization.
(iv) Modified award be prepared accordingly.
(v) Claimants to pay court fees on enhanced compensation as
per rules.
(vi) On deposit of the amount by Insurance Company,
appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw the same.
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE,
JUDGE
S P Rane
