Bombay High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Smt. Malekas Bi. W/O. Syd., Afsar And ... on 9 June, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:5391
J FA-961-2016.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.961 OF 2016
APPELLANT : Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Akola Divisional Office, through its
(Ori. Resp. No.2) Manager, Nagpur Office, Ayodhya Building,
1st Floor, 119, Near Bajaj Nagar Chowk,
Nagpur, Tah. & Dist. Nagpur.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENTS : 1 Smt. Malekas Bi W/o Syd. Afsar,
ON R.A. Aged about 48 years, Occu: Nil
(Dead) LRs brought on record.
Legal Representatives of Respondent No.1.
1(a) Sayyad Ajhar Ali Sayyad Afsar Ali,
Aged 40 years, Occu : Labour, R/o Sayyad
Pura, Patur, Tah. Patur, Dist. Akola.
1(b) Shagufta Bi Sayyad Akhtar,
Aged : 45 years, Occu : Home-maker, R/o
near Mohommadiya Masjid, Mullani Chauk
Khadan, Chadur, Tah. & Dist. Akola.
1(c) Shaheen Bee Mohammad Nisar,
Aged : 33 years, Occu : Home-maker, R/o.
Salavat Plots, Tah. Patur, Dist. Akola.
1(d) Sayyad Akhtar Ali Sayyad Afsar Ali,
Aged : 50 years, Occu : Labour, R/o. Sayyad
Pura, Tah. Patur, Dist. Akola.
1(e) Shahista Bi Syed Liyakat Ali,
Aged 50 years, Occu : Home-maker, R/o.
Sayyad Pura, Tah. Patur, Dist. Akola.
1(f) Sayyad Zafar Ali Syed Afsar Ali,
Aged 47 years, Occu : Labour, R/o. Devdi
Maidan, Tah. Patur, Dist. Akola.
J FA-961-2016.odt
2
1(g) Syad Asgar Ali Syed Afsar Ali,
Aged 43 years, Occu : Labour, R/o. Solabat
Plots, Tah. Patur, Dist. Akola.
1(h) Heena Parveen D/o Liyakat Ali,
Aged 26 years, Occu : Home-maker, R/o.
Quazi Pura, Tah. Patur, Dist. Akola.
1(i) Seema Parveen D/o Liyakat Ali,
Aged 27 years, Occu : Home-maker, R/o
Syed Pura, Tah. Patur, Dist. Akola.
1(j) Shahin Parveen Nasir Khan,
Aged 33 years, Occu : Home-maker, R/o.
Kokewali Chal, Khadan, Tah & Dist. Akola.
Deleted as per order 1(k) Syed Noor Ali Syed Afsar Ali,
dated 18.12.2024 on Aged 35 years, Occu : Labour, R/o. Syed
CAF Pura, Tah. Patur, Dist. Akola (Deleted)
No.3726/2024.
1(l) Syed Meer Ali Syed Afsar Ali,
Aged 36 years, Occu : Labour, R/o. Syed
Pura, Tah. Patur, Dist. Akola.
1(m) Syed Mazhar Ali Syed Afsar Ali,
Aged 38 years, Occu : Labour, R/o. Syed
Pura, Tah. Patur, Dist. Akola.
Amendment for 2 Syd. Afsar S/o. Syd. Imam (Dead),
respondent No.2 Aged about 52 years, Occu : Nil.
carried out as per
Court's order dated
07.01.2025
3 Shahista Bi W/o Liyakat Ali,
Aged about 30 years, Occu : Household
work.
4 Heena Parvin D/o Liyakat Ali,
Aged about 14 years, Occu : Education.
5 Seema Parveen D/o Liyakat Ali,
Aged about 12 years, Occu : Education
J FA-961-2016.odt
3
Respondentt Nos.4 and 5 minors, through
the respondent No.3 their mother and
natural guardian.
All R/o. Patur, Tq. Patur, Dist. Akola
...(Original Claimants)
6 Ejajullah Khan S/o. Hamidullah Khan,
Aged-Adult, Occu : Owner and driver of
taxi, R/o. Dahihanda ves, Old City, Akola.
...(Original Respd. No.1.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr D. N. Kukday, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr U. J. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
RESERVED ON : 10th MARCH, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON 9th JUNE, 2025.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel
Mr D. N. Kukday appearing for the appellant and
Mr U. J. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to
5.
2. This appeal challenges the impugned award dated
31.08.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Akola in Claim Petition No.36 of 2013, thereby granting
Rs.18,63,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 8.50% per
J FA-961-2016.odt
annum from the date of petition till its realization to the
original claimants towards compensation on account of the
death of Syd. Noor Ali.
3. On 24.01.2012 at about 01:30 p.m., deceased
Syd. Noor Ali was travelling by taxi bearing No.MH-30-
E-9034 from Akola to Patur. The driver was driving the said
taxi in a rash and negligent manner in high speed. When the
offending taxi reached near Nandkhed branch road, it bumped
over a pit and its rear door got opened due to which the
deceased fell on the road. He sustained severe head injuries and
died on the spot. Crime No.106 of 2012 came to be registered
against the driver of the offending taxi for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. The original claimants claiming themselves to be the
dependents of deceased Syd. Noor Ali filed the claim petition
before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned award
directed the appellant - original respondent No.2 and
respondent No.6 - original respondent No.1 to pay jointly and
J FA-961-2016.odt
severally, the compensation amount of Rs.18,63,000/- inclusive
of no fault liability amount of Rs.50,000/- to the original
claimants alongwith interest @ 8.50%. Feeling aggrieved with
the impugned award, the present appeal came to be filed on the
ground of quantum of compensation and granting future
prospects to the extent of 50% of the income of deceased Syd.
Noor Ali.
4. Mr. D. N. Kukday, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submitted that in-spite of discarding the evidence of
claimants' witness Salim Khan, the Tribunal considered the
income of the deceased at Rs.350/- per day which was deposed
by Salim Khan who is a Building Contractor. It is contended
that the Tribunal ought not to have granted the future
prospects as they lacked any promotional avenue. According to
him, notional income at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month
ought to have been awarded. To buttress his submission, he
seeks to rely on the following decisions :
i) New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another vs. Vishal
Rameshwar Mote and Another, 2020(4) Mh.L.J. 598,
J FA-961-2016.odt
ii) Malanbai w/o Mahipatrao Tumane and Another vs. Suresh
S/o. Natthuji Moharle and Another, 2019(3) Mh.L.J. 821 and
iii) Nisha W/o Naresh Gajre and Others vs. Subhash S/o
Laxman More and Another, 2018 (5) Mh.L.J. 631.
5. Per contra, Mr. U. J. Deshpande, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 vehemently
submitted that deceased Syd. Noor Ali was working as a mason
and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered his income at
Rs.350/- per day. According to him, the Tribunal has rightly
assessed the income of the deceased and in wake of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and ors, 2017
(16) SCC 680 has rightly granted compensation towards future
prospects. On the contrary, the Tribunal applied the wrong
multiplier of 15 instead of 17 without considering the age of
deceased Syd. Noor Ali. For applying the multiplier, age of
deceased is required to be considered. Therefore, the amount of
compensation is required to be enhanced by applying the
multiplier of 17. He stressed on the fact that, for enhancement
of compensation in appeal, no cross-appeal or cross-objection is
J FA-961-2016.odt
required to be filed by the claimants and the theory of just
compensation will apply to the case in hand.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on
behalf of the respective parties and having gone through the
impugned award, it transpires that deceased Syd. Noor Ali died
in a vehicular accident on 24.01.2012. The crime came to be
registered against the driver of the offending taxi for the
offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the IPC and
under Section 184 of the M. V. Act. The investigation
conducted in the said crime reveals that respondent No.6 was
driving the taxi in high speed in a rash and negligent manner
due to which, the rear door of the taxi opened and the deceased
fell down on the road sustaining severe injuries that became the
cause of his death. Hence, the Tribunal held respondent No.6
responsible for negligence in the accident.
7. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the
mother of deceased Syd. Noor Ali deposed that the deceased
was a mason and was earning Rs.350/- to 400/- per day. Salim
J FA-961-2016.odt
Khan - a Building Contractor who issued the salary certificate
mentioning the daily wages of deceased as Rs.350/- to 400/-
per day was also examined. However, his evidence was
discarded by the Tribunal on the count that the registration
certificate of Building Contractor Salim Khan was effective
from 26.05.2014 to 25.05.2017.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that when there was no material on record to show
the income of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have decided
the compensation on the basis of notional income. According
to him, at the relevant time, the notional income of deceased
Syd. Noor Ali ought to have been considered by the Tribunal at
Rs.6,000/- per month.
9. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a mason at
the time of his death which is unorganized labour. Considering
the fact that he was a mason and had the skill regarding
construction of buildings, the Tribunal was right in holding his
income at Rs.350/- per day. However, since it was unorganized
J FA-961-2016.odt
labour and the deceased may not have worked everyday, in my
view, the income at Rs.9,000/- per month would be just and
proper. To that extent, I find substance in the argument of the
learned counsel for the appellant and accordingly, the income
of the deceased is assessed @ Rs.9,000/- per month.
10. Needless to mention that, in wake of the decision in
the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that for a person working on a fixed salary or self
employed, an addition of 40% towards future prospects is to be
given if he is below the age of 40 years. Therefore, I do not find
force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant
that the Tribunal ought not to have granted future prospects.
However, it appears that the Tribunal has granted an addition
of 50% towards future prospects which is to be reduced to 40%
on assessing the income of the deceased.
11. The next argument of the learned counsel for the
respondents is that, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the assessed
income towards personal expenses, whereas there are 5
J FA-961-2016.odt
dependents, therefore, 1/4th of the assessed income ought to
have been deducted towards personal expenses. Let me state
that the deceased was a bachelor and in case of Sarla Verma vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that generally, in case of bachelors, the
amount of 50% of the assessed income should be taken as a
personal expenses of the deceased. However, if numbers of
dependents are more than, the Tribunal can consider 1/3rd of
assessed income as personal expenses of the deceased.
Considering the number of dependents, the 1/3rd of the
assessed income of the deceased should be deducted towards
personal expenses which is rightly done by the Tribunal in the
present case.
12. Perusal of the impugned award reveals that the
multiplier applied by the Tribunal on the assessed income is 15.
In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it has been held that while
applying the multiplier, age of the deceased should be
considered. The deceased was 28 years old at the time of his
death. Therefore, I find substance in the argument of the
J FA-961-2016.odt
learned counsel for the respondents that the multiplier of 17
would be applicable.
13. In view thereof, the original claimants are entitled for
the following compensation :
1. The monthly notional income of deceased Rs. 9,000/-
2. Annual Income of the deceased (Rs.9,000/- x Rs. 1,08,000/-
12)
3. Since the deceased was below the age of 40 (+)Rs. 43,200/-
years at the time of his death
Add - 40% future prospects as per the
judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680
Rs. 1,51,200/-
4. Less - 1/3rd deduction as per the judgment of (-)Rs. 50,400/-
Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
(2009) 6 SCC 121
5. Salary for multiplier 1,00,800/-
6. Multiplier of 17 as per the judgment of Sarla (x)Rs. 17,13,600/-
Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation,
(2009) 6 SCC 121, applicable for the age
group of 31 to 35
7. Add Loss of consortium : (+)Rs. 1,20,000/-
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
(40,000/- x 3)
8. Add Loss of Estate : (+)Rs. 15,000/-
9. Add Funeral Expenses (+)Rs. 15,000/-
Total compensation payable to the Rs. 18,63,600/-
claimants.
J FA-961-2016.odt
14. In the above said terms, the appeal is disposed of.
Accordingly, the impugned award is modified.
15. The original claimants are entitled for the
compensation amount of Rs.18,63,600/- alongwith interest @
8.50% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
16. The appellant would be entitled to the amount in
enhanced compensation with accrued interest.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.)
Tambe.
Signed by: Mr. Ashish Tambe
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/06/2025 15:24:45
