Bombay High Court
Kalawati Venkatrao Lande And Ors vs Anis Ahmed Khan Rayees Ahmed Khan And Anr on 22 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:19257
2096-20-FA.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.2096 OF 2020
1. Kalawati W/o Venkatrao Lande,
Age: 57 years, Occu.: Household
R/o. Shirpur, Tq. Palam,
Dist. Parbhani.
2. Swati W/o. Shivaji Lande,
Age: 32 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Shirpur, Tq. Palam,
Dist. Parbhani.
3. Venkati S/o. Shivaji Lande,
Age: 15 years, Occu.: Education
4. Arti D/o. Shivaji Lande,
Age: 13 years, Occu.: Education,
5. Shradha D/o. Shivaji Lande,
Age: 11 years, Occu.: Education,
6. Sakharam S/o. Shivaji Lande,
Age: 6 years, Occu.: Nil.
(Appellants No.3 to 6 are minors
U/G real Mother i.e. Appellant
No.2 Swati W/o. Shivaji Lande). .... Appellants
VERSUS
1. Anis Ahmed Khan S/o.
Rayees Ahmed Khan,
Age: Major, Occu. : Business,
R/o. Quadrabad Plot at post
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.
2. Ifco Tokio Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Branch Manager, Latur,
1st Floor, Inani Building above
Latur Sari Center Old Cloth Lane,
Latur, Tq. and Dist. Latur. .... Non-Appellants
(Orig. Respondents)
2096-20-FA.odt
{2}
......
Mr. V.M. Maney, Advocate for Appellants
Mr. Swapnil S. Rathi, Advocate for Respondent No.1 - State
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 15 JULY 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 22 JULY 2025
JUDGMENT:
-
1. Original claimants are hereby assailing judgment and
award passed by the learned M.A.C.T, Parbhani in M.A.C.P.
No.353 of 2015 passed on 17.03.2017.
2. On 28.08.2014, deceased Shivaji was proceeding on
motorcycle bearing No. MH-22-L-6913 on Parbhani-Gangakhed
road. Near Tad Pangari, offending truck bearing No. MH-29-
8035 was parked on the road without any indicators and red
reflectors, as a result of which, Shivaji was dashed over the said
standing truck and suffered serious injuries. Subsequently he
died in the said accident. Consequently, crime was registered
against the driver of the offending truck. Appellants, who are
mother, wife, sons and daughters of deceased Shivaji, set up an
accident claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Parbhani to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/-, under section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act.
2096-20-FA.odt
{3}
3. In the claim petition, notices were issued to respondents
No. 1 and 2. The driver of the offending truck (respondent No.
1) contested the claim by filing a written statement and denied
the averments made in the claim petition. Respondent no.2-
insurance company also appeared and resisted the claim petition
by filing written statement. Both, oral as well as documentary
evidence, was permitted to be adduced.
4. On appreciation of the same, Tribunal framed issues and
after recording evidence and hearing parties, partly allowed the
claim petition directing respondent nos.1 and 2 to jointly and
severally pay compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- along with interest
@ 7% under various heads vide judgment and award dated
17.03.2017.
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the
claimants have preferred present appeal on various grounds.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants primarily confined
his arguments to the issue of monthly income of deceased
Shivaji, contending that it should have been considered as Rs.
8,000/- instead of Rs. 5,000/-. He was also dissatisfied with the
grant of amount towards loss of consortium, which is awarded
in lump sum to the tune of Rs.65,000/-. He also expressed
2096-20-FA.odt
{4}
dissatisfaction with the award of only Rs. 10,000/- towards
funeral expenses so also for failure to grant compensation for
future prospects, and the lump-sum compensation awarded
under non-pecuniary heads.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent 2-
insurance company justified and supported the findings and
conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. He would submit that the
deceased Shivaji was working as an agricultural labour and
claimed to be earning Rs. 8,000/- per month, however, there
was no legally acceptable evidence to support the claim.
Therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly consider the notional
income of deceased Shivaji as Rs.5,000/-. Learned counsel
submits that Tribunal has awarded lump sum amount under the
heads of consortium and non pecuniary heads, which is just and
proper, as the claimants have failed to produce on record any
reliable oral and documentary evidence. For all above reasons,
he urges to dismiss the appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for appellants/claimants and
learned counsel for respondent no.2/insurance company.
Though served, none appears for respondent No.1. Perused the
impugned judgment and award.
2096-20-FA.odt
{5}
8. It is seen that, in the claim petition, there is no serious
contest on the issue that deceased Shivaji met with accidental
death while proceeding on motorcycle bearing no. MH-22-L-
6913 and it being collided with truck bearing no. MH-29-8035
parked on the road. There is no dispute even about deceased
Shivaji to have succumbed to the injuries suffered in the said
accident. Learned counsel for the insurance company tired to
resist affirmative findings recorded by the Tribunal holding
driver of offending truck to be negligent in parking the truck
without any indicator or reflector. Further, this Court came
across with the findings of the Tribunal in paragraphs no. 19 and
21 holding the act of the driver of the offending vehicle to be
rash and negligent and in paragraph no. 22, it has been
observed that, the alleged accident took place only due to the
said rash and negligent act. Therefore, no fault can be found in
the findings of the Tribunal that there was negligence on the
part of truck driver in parking the truck on the road without
indicator or reflector and leaving the said vehicle in the such
condition. Consequently, the only issue which is contested by the
appellant is quantum of compensation.
2096-20-FA.odt
{6}
9. Before the Tribunal, case is set up by the claimants that
deceased Shivaji was working in the field of one Ramrao as an
agricultural labour and he was receiving Rs.8,000/- per month
as salary. Though Ramrao is made to step into the witness box,
he could not produce any documentary evidence suggesting
such payments being made. Therefore, the Tribunal was left
with no any alternative but to consider notional income of
deceased Shivaji as Rs. 5,000/- per month. However, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the same should be Rs.6,000/-
per month. Even as regards to age is concerned, though there is
no documentary evidence, in such circumstances, the only
material which can be visited is postmortem report, and in the
instant case, postmortem report of deceased Shivaji shows that
at the time of accident his age was 40 years as considered by
the Tribunal. Therefore, Tribunal has properly applied the
multiplayer available to such age group as 15.
10. In the present case, computations and calculations made
by the learned Tribunal are reflected in paragraph 33 of the
impugned judgment. Apparently, no amount has been awarded
under the head of future prospects. So also, no amount has been
awarded under the heads of loss of estate. Tribunal has erred in
2096-20-FA.odt
{7}
awarding amount of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and
lump sum amounts under the heard of consortium and mental
shock as well as under non-pecuniary heads.
11. In view of the ratio laid down in National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 (16) SCC
680, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2018(18) SCC
130, claimants are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each, i.e. 2,40,000/-
plus 20% (Rs. 48,000/-) which comes to Rs. 2,88,000/- towards
loss of consortium and love and affection. Rs. 15,000/- plus 20%
(Rs.3,000/-), which comes to Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate
and Rs.15,000/- plus 20% (Rs.3,000/-), which comes to
Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses.
12. Claimants are also entitled for future prospects.
Considering that the age of deceased at the time of accident was
40 years, 40% needs to be awarded towards future prospectus in
view of ratio in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra).
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, claimants are entitled
for following compensation.
2096-20-FA.odt
{8}
Sr. Heads Amount (Rs.)
No.
1. Annual Income 72,000/-
Rs.6,000 X 12 = 72,000/-
2. Future Prospects 40% 1,00,800/-
i.e. 28,800 (72,000 + 28,800)
¼ deduction towards personal expenses 75,600/-
i.e.1,00,800 - 25,200 =54,000/-)
3. Multiplier of 15 (75,600 X 15) 11,34,000/-
4. Non-pecuniary Losses:-
(i) Loss of Estate 18,000/-
(ii) Funeral expenses
18,000/-
(iii) Loss of consortium and
love and affection 2,88,000/-
4. Total compensation to be paid 14,58,000-
5. Compensation awarded by Tribunal 7,50,000/-
6. Total Enhanced Compensation 7,08,000/-
(i.e. Rs.14,58,000 - 7,50,000)
14. In the result, following order is passed :-
ORDER
(i) Impugned judgment and award dated
17.03.2017, passed by Adhoc District Judge - 1
and Ex-Officio Member of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Parbhani in M.A.C.P. No.353 of
2015 is modified.
2096-20-FA.odt
{9}
(ii) Respondent no.2 - Insurance Company to pay
enhanced compensation of Rs.7,08,000/- to
claimants within 12 weeks from today along
with interest @ 7% 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.
(vi) First appeal is allowed in above terms.
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE
JUDGE
S P Rane
