[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Smt. Kanan Wd/O Ashim Mandal And Others vs Rahis Siddiqui S/O Rashid Siddiqui And ... on 8 April, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:5512
1 fa 1658.19 judg.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No.1658/2019
1) Smt. Kanan wd/o Ashim Mandal,
Aged about 40 years, Occ.-Service.
2) Chamak s/o Ashim Mandal,
Aged about 17 years, Occ.-Education.
3) Ku. Kamalika d/o Ashim Mandal,
Aged about 11 years, Occ- Education.
Appellant nos. 2 and 3 through their
natural guardian mother-appellant no.1.
4) Smt. Parul wd/o Subodh Mandal,
Aged about 66 years, Occ- Household,
R/o-Bhagat Nagar, Post Khudrampalli,
Tahsil Mulchera, District Chandrapur. .... Appellants
(Org. Claimants On R.A.)
-Versus-
1) Rahis Siddiqui s/o Rashid Siddiqui,
Aged about 40 years, Occ.-Business,
R/o.- New Majri Colony, Shivaji Nagar, Majri,
Tahsil Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur.
2) The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
through its Branch Manager,
The Reliance general Insurance Co. Ltd,
1st Floor, Ayodhya Building, Bajaj Nagar Chowk, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur.
3) Ram Parvesh s/o Ganga Prasad,
Aged about 46 years, Occ-Driver,
R/o.C/o Sanju Medical at Village Majri, Tahsil Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur. .... Respondents.
(Ori. Non-Applicants on R.A.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr. A.R. Rishi, Advocate for appellants.
Mr. D.N. Kukday, Advocate for respondent no.2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : Neeraj P. Dhote, J.
DATE : 08-04-2026.
Oral Judgment
Heard.
2 fa 1658.19 judg.odt
2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, by the original claimants seeking enhancement of the
compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chandrapur (for short, 'MACT') in Claim Petition No.160/2015, by
judgment and award dated 08-12-2017.
3. The aforesaid claim petition was preferred seeking
compensation on account of the death of the husband of appellant No. 1,
father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and son of appellant No. 4, in a motor
vehicular accident dated 19.08.2015, when the deceased was proceeding
on a motorcycle on the Chandrapur-Nagpur Highway. Appellant No. 1
examined herself and one other witness in support of the claim. The
respondents did not lead any evidence. Upon consideration of the
evidence on record, the learned Tribunal passed the aforesaid judgment
and award.
4. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that, though
there is no documentary proof of the income of the deceased, the accident
having occurred in the year 2015, the appropriate notional income ought
to have been assessed between ₹ 7,000/- and ₹ 9,000/- per month. It is
further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in cases pertaining to
accidents of the year 2015, has assessed the notional income within the
aforesaid range. It is further contended that consortium of ₹40,000/- is
required to be awarded to each of the claimants. It is further contended
that, although there are four (4) claimants, the learned Tribunal has
erroneously deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the
3 fa 1658.19 judg.odt
deceased. It is further submitted that, the award passed by the learned
Tribunal deserves to be suitably modified by enhancing the compensation.
5. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Insurance
Company that ₹6,000 per month has rightly been considered as the
notional income by the learned Tribunal. It is further contended that there
is no evidence to establish that the mother was dependent on the
deceased, particularly when she was residing separately. It is further
contended that, the widow was gainfully employed and, therefore, cannot
be treated as a dependent. It is submitted that, the appeal be dismissed.
6. There is no dispute regarding the death of the husband of
Appellant No.1 in the motor vehicular accident. According to the
claimants, the deceased was running a shop and was also working as an
agent for the Life Insurance Corporation. The widow examined herself
before the learned Tribunal. It is an admitted position that no
documentary evidence was produced to establish the income of the
deceased at the time of his death. In her cross-examination, the widow
deposed that the income of the deceased was ₹5,000 per month. The
learned Tribunal, however, assessed the notional income of the deceased
at ₹6,000 per month. In the absence of any material on record to
substantiate the income of the deceased, the monthly income as
determined by the learned Tribunal appears reasonable and does not
warrant any interference.
7. Claimant No. 4 is the mother of the deceased. The learned
Tribunal, though observed in paragraph 11 that, "merely because Claimant
No. 4 (mother) was residing separately at Gadchiroli does not mean that
4 fa 1658.19 judg.odt
she was not dependent on the income of the deceased" has recorded a
contrary finding in paragraph 14 that Claimant No. 4 was not residing
with the claimants and, on that basis, deducted 1/3rd towards the
personal and living expenses of the deceased. This contradictory finding
warrants interference. In view of the observations in paragraph 11,
Appellant No. 4 is required to be treated as a dependent of the deceased.
Consequently, the appropriate deduction towards personal and living
expenses should be 1/4th instead of 1/3rd.
8. Learned Tribunal awarded the compensation under the head
of consortium only to the widow. In view of the decision in Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ra, @ Chuhru Ram , (2019) 4 Mh.L.J.
1, the children and the mother would be entitled for consortium at the
rate of ₹40,000/- each. The compensation towards the other conventional
heads such as loss of estate and funeral expenses are properly considered.
9. The age of deceased was 47 years at the time of death. As
per the judgment in National Insurance Company limited vs Pranay Sethi
and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, there will be 25% addition in the income
for future prospects. Thus the income of deceased is recalculated as under
:-
Monthly income ₹6000/-
25% addition towards future prospects ₹1800/-
Total ₹7800/-
1/4th deduction towards personal expenses ₹5850/-
(₹1,950 - ₹7,800 = )
Multiplied by 12 (₹5850/- x 12) ₹70,200/-
Multiplier by 13 (₹70,200 X 13) ₹9,12,600/-
+₹ 40,000/- each, towards consortium ₹1,60,000/-
5 fa 1658.19 judg.odt
Total ₹10,72,600/-
+ Loss of Estate ₹15,000/-
Personal expenses ₹15,000/-
Total ₹11,02,600/-
10. The appellants shall be entitled to receive compensation of
₹11,02,600/- from Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, together with interest at the
same rate as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The apportionment shall be
made in the same proportion as done by the learned Tribunal. The amount
of enhanced compensation shall be deposited in this Court within a period
of eight (8) weeks from today. The amount already paid by the Insurance
Company to the claimants shall be deducted from the enhanced amount of
compensation. No costs.
11. The record and proceedings be sent back to the learned
Tribunal.
(Judge)
Deshmukh
Signed by: Mr. S.Deshmukh
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/04/2026 16:38:15
