Bombay High Court
Reshma Parvin Wd/O Idris Khan vs National Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr. ... on 18 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12645
fa 1040-2010.doc 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1040/2010
1. Reshma Parvin Wd/o Idris Khan,
Aged about 26 years, occ.nil,
2. Ku.Misba Fatema d/o Idris Khan,
Aged about 6 years, minor,
3. Sarim Khan s/o Idris Khan,
Aged about 2 years, minor,
Nos. 2 & 3 minors
through natural guardian-mother
Smt. Reshma Parvin wd/o Idris Khan,
All c/o Shaikh Chand Sk. Munir,
(Bhangarwala's house),
Khawaja Nagar, Sonttake Plots,
Old City, Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola,
... APPELLANTS
...VERSUS...
1. National Insurance Company Limited,
Through its Divisional Manager,
Opposite Open Air Theater,
M.G. Road, Akola,
Tq. and Distt. Akola.
2. Gurupalsingh s/o Charansing Nagra,
Aged about 50 years, occ. tanker owner,
Near Railway Station,
Akola, Tq. and Distt. Akola,
...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri C.A. Joshi, Advocate for appellants
Dr. C.C. Anthony, Advocate for the respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fa 1040-2010.doc 2/7
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATED : 18.11.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
. Heard.
2. By way of present appeal, the challenge is to the
judgment and order dated 10.06.2010 passed in M.A.C.P.
No.224/2008 by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola.
3. In short, the submission of the appellants is that the
deceased was working as a Cleaner/Labourer and was earning
Rs.10,000/- per month and he was receiving additional amount
towards the Bhatta and diesel loading and unloading charges
Rs.2000/-. Hence, on the basis of this evidence, the claim was made
before the Tribunal to grant the compensation of Rs.10 lakhs before
the Tribunal.
4. The learned Tribunal by considering the monthly
income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month and by
applying the multiplier of 17, has awarded the compensation of
Rs.7 lakhs to the claimants/ appellant. The appellants being
dissatisfied with this compensation amount preferred the present
appeal and claimed the enhancement in the compensation.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1
vehemently opposed the appeal. According to him, the claimants
failed to establish on record by concrete proof that the monthly
income of the deceased was Rs.10,000/- and above per month.
There is only the deposition of the claimant No.1 in the matter and
no further evidence produced on record to substantiate the fact that
deceased was having earning of Rs.10,000/- per month.
6. According to the respondent No.1, at the relevant time,
by applying the principle of minimum wages, the salary of a person
can be considered Rs.4,320/-. But in present case, the amount
considered by the learned Tribunal of Rs.5000/- per month is
already at the higher side and, therefore, there is no need of any
indulgence of this Court in the matter. He further pointed out that
considering the age of the deceased, on the date of accident, as 32
years, the multiplier of 16 is applicable in the matter. However, the
learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 17. According to
respondent No.1, the appellants have already been granted higher
compensation, than what they are entitled, therefore, the present
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. Considering this factual aspect, the present appeal
needs consideration only to the extent of quantum of compensation
in the matter. According to me, after going through the record and
particularly from the evidence of the appellant No.1, it is an
admitted fact on record that deceased, at the time of accident, was
in the employment of respondent No.2 as a Cleaner-cum-Labourer.
No documentary evidence is placed on record as to how much
amount he was earning per month.
8. The appellants could have called the person from the
employment of respondent No.2 to prove his monthly income, but it
seems that no one has taken any care to prove the monthly income
of the deceased. As such, there is only the statement on oath of the
claimant No.1 that the deceased was earning amount of
Rs.10,000/- per month.
9. In the facts and circumstances, the judicial notice can
be taken of the fact that the accident in the present case was
occurred on 28.07.2008. At the relevant time, as per the
Notification of Labour Commissioner, the minimum wages if made
applicable, the monthly wages comes Rs.4,320/-. The learned
Tribunal in the present matter has already considered the amount
of Rs.5000/- per month, by applying the minimum wages and the
nature of the work. I find that the monthly income, which was
considered by the learned Tribunal, is just and proper in the matter
and needs no interference in the matter to the aspect of monthly
income assessed by Tribunal.
10. It is however submitted that as per the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma
Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121, the
deceased, who at the time of accident is between age of 31 to 35
years, the Multiplier of 16 is to be made applicable. Likewise, in the
judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi
and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimants are
entitled for the compensation on conventional heads.
11. Accordingly, the appellants will be entitled for the
compensation by considering his monthly income Rs.5000/- and he
will be entitled towards future prospects, consortium loss of estate
ect. The calculation in this regard are made as under:
CALCULATION BY TRIBUNAL
Rs. 5,000/- X 12 = Rs. 60,000/- (NI)
Rs. 20,000/- (PA)
Rs. 40,000/- x 17 = 6,80,000/- (Less 1/3rd) (Multiplier applied)
Rs. 15,000/- (Consortium)
Rs. 5,000/- (Funeral Expenses)
Total Rs. 7,00,000/-
CORRECT CALCULATION
Monthly Income Rs. 5,000/-
Annual Income Rs. 60,000/-
(Add) - Future Prospects as per Pranay Sethi Rs. 24,000/-
( Rs.60,000 X 40% )
Total after adding future prospects Rs. 84,000/-
rd
(Less) 1/3 Deduction towards Personal & Liv- Rs. 28,000/-
ing Expenses
( 84,000 X 1/3rd )
Total after deduction of Personal & Living ex- Rs. 56,000/-
penses (84,000-28,000)
(Add) - Proper Multiplier as per Sarla Verma Rs. 8,96,000/-
( 56,000 X 16 )
(Add) - Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,20,000/-
( 40,000 x 3 )
(Add) - Loss of Estate, Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
---------------
Rs. 30,000/-
Total Rs. 10,46,000/-
12. Hence according to me, appellant is entitled for the
compensation of Rs. 10,76,000/-. The respondent- Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the amount.
13. Rest of the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Akola, in M.A.C.P. No.224/2008 is confirmed.
14. Needless to mention that, the amount already
deposited be deducted from enhanced amount.
15. After deposit of amount, appellants are at liberty to
withdraw the same subject to the satisfaction of Registrar
(Judicial).
16. The First Appeal stands disposed of in above terms. No
order as to the costs.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.)
R.S. Sahare
Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/11/2025 17:07:42
