Sheikh Aziz S/O Shaikh Jumman And 2 ... vs Gangadhar N. Nikam And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 508 Bom

Bombay High Court

Sheikh Aziz S/O Shaikh Jumman And 2 ... vs Gangadhar N. Nikam And Another on 17 January, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:725


              fa.79.15-J.doc                                                                         1/8



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                                             FIRST APPEAL NO.79 OF 2015


              1. Sheikh Aziz s/o. Shaikh Jumman,
                 Aged about 63 years, Occu. : Service,

              2. Mehrunnisa Shaikh w/o. Shaikh Aziz,
                 Aged about 58 years, Occu. Household,

              3. Afrin Kausr d/o. Shaikh Aziz,
                 Aged about 28 years, Occu. Student,
                   All R/o. 44, Sai Nagar, Behind Sona Gold
                                                            ---APPELLANTS
                   Finger Factory, Shantinagar, Nagpur.

                           ---VERSUS---
              1. Gangadhar N. Nikam,
                 Aged : Major, Occu. : Owner of Truck,
                 R/o. Tarsa Road, Kanhan,
                 Tahsil : Parseoni, District : Nagpur.

              2. The Branch Manager,
                 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                 Mount Road, Sadar, Nagpur.                                     ----RESPONDENTS

              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Mr. K. P. Mirache, Advocate for Appellants.
              Mr. B. Lahiri, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
              JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 14.01.2026.
              JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 17.01.2026

              JUDGMENT

. This is an Appeal by the parents and sister of the deceased

Tarannum Naaz, who died in the motor vehicular accident on 10.10.2004

when she was travelling in a car from Nagpur - Jabalpur road and the truck

gave dash to the car. The Appellants have preferred this Appeal under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'M.V.Act) for

enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal (for short, M.A.C.T.), Nagpur in Claim Petition

No.1323/2004 by Judgment and Award dated 06.07.2013 awarding the

compensation of Rs.24,71,336/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the

date of petition till its realization.

2. According to the Appellants, the deceased was working as Air

Hostess with Qatar Airways and earning 8,998 Qatar Riyal per month as the

salary which comes to Rs.1,16,974/- in Indian Currency and the deceased

was 25 years old at the time of death. The Appellants led the necessary

evidence. The Salary Certificate of the deceased was brought on record by

examining the witnesses. The Appellants examined the Chief Manager of

the Canara Bank to show the value of the Qatar Riyal in terms of the Indian

Currency at the relevant time. Considering the evidence on record, the

learned Tribunal awarded the above referred compensation.

3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellants that,

the learned Tribunal did not consider the entire per month salary of the

deceased and considered the salary of the deceased on lower side, though

sufficient evidence was brought on record in support of per month income

of the deceased. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Insurance

Company that, the learned Tribunal has given sound reason while

considering the income of the deceased by making appropriate deduction.

4. The evidence on record shows that witness No.2, who was

Senior Sales Executive with Qatar Airways was examined by the Appellants.

His evidence shows that, the deceased was the Cabin Attendant and got the

salary of 8998 Qatar Riyal for August, 2004 and for the month of

September, 2004 she was paid 5,673 Qatar Riyal. The necessary documents

in respect of the said salary are brought on record. The evidence of witness

No.3 examined by the Appellants shows that, he was Chief Manager in the

Canara Bank. He was examined in respect of the exchange rate of the Qatar

Riyal. His evidence shows that, on 03.08.2004, value of one (1) Qatar

Riyal was Rs.12.656 and on 31.08.2004, it was Rs.12.711. His evidence

shows that, the Foreign Exchange rate keeps fluctuating frequently and he

was not in a position to state the rate of Foreign Exchange for the month of

September and October, 2004, in absence of data with him.

5. The learned Tribunal while considering the evidence in respect

of the income of the deceased gave sound and acceptable reasons which are

based on the material available on record. For better understanding and

clarity, the relevant observations made in paragraph Nos.14, 15 and 16

from the Judgment of the learned Tribunal are reproduced below :

"14) Claimant No.1 examined as P.W.01 at Exh. 20 has stated that his daughter Tarannum Naaz, aged about 25 years was serving with Qatar Airway, as Air-hostess and was getting Rs.8,998/ in Riyal currency, per month, which is equal to Rs.1,16,974/ in Indian currency. In order to support it, claimants have examined one Mr. Ravinchandran Nalam Bathukkal, as P.W.02. He testified at Exh.33 that as Senior Sales Executive with Qatar Airway Office at Mumbai, he had been deputed to produce documents with regard to salary details etc. of deceased Tarannum Naaz, who worked with Qatar Airways Office at Doha (Qatar Country). According to him, Exh. 35 are the documents, with regard to salary details of Tarannum Naaz, for a period from January, 2004 to October, 2004, running into 10 pages, every page bearing seal of office.

In cross-examination by respondent No.2, no doubt, he was candid in saying that he was not personally aware, how details of salary was prepared. It was, however, not elicited from his mouth that Exh.35 are not the details about job and salary of Tarannum Naaz, with Qatar Airway.

15) On behalf of respondent No.2, attention of this Tribunal is attracted towards salary sheet of September, 2004 and it is contended that 05,732/ in Qatar Riyal currency and details consist of Hotel Meal Allowance and hourly flying pay. It is contended that Hotel Meal Allowance and hourly flying pay cannot be considered as part of pay/salary of deceased Tarannum Naaz and if those two items are deducted, salary of deceased Tarannum Naaz would work out to Rs.2,042/- per month. On reading of details about salary of the period of September, 2004, I find myself unable to subscribe to this argument, because, those two items are shown as Hotel Meal Allowance and hourly flying pay, which have to be taken as part of salary and other allowances of deceased Tarannum Naaz, last paid one, thus, is to be taken 05,732/- per month, in Qatar Riyal currency and not 08,998/, as tried to be claimed by the claimants.

16) It is required to mention here that claimants have examined one Abhaykumar Dineshchand Malviya, Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Itwari Branch, Nagpur, as P.W.03. He has testified at Exh.49 that from the statement with regard to Exchange rate of Qatar Riyal, for the year 2004, with which, he had come to his Tribunal on 03.08.2004 value of one Qatar Riyal was Rs. 12.656 and on 31.08.2004, Rs.12.711/-. In cross- examination by respondent No.2, he was plain in saying that he was not in a position to state rate in Foreign Exchange in September and October, 2004, in the absence of date with him, purportedly when he entered the witness box, which would suggest that whatever rates of Foreign Exchange stated by him of August, 2004 was on the strength of date available with the bank and bought by him, with him. Even if, rate of Foreign Exchange of 03.08.2004 is taken into account, in view of evidence brought on record, value of Qatar Riyal cannot be below Rs. 12.656/-, in Indian currency, in the absence of data by respondents, to show otherwise. Therefore, per month income/earning of deceased Taranum Naaz is to be taken Rs. 72,510/- and per annum Rs. 08,70,120/-."

6. The above referred observations and consideration of the

material on record by the learned Tribunal are acceptable. The learned

Tribunal minutely and appropriately considered the evidence brought on

record by the Appellants in its right prospective and in my considered view,

no interference is called for on the aspect of income of the deceased

considered and accepted by the learned Tribunal.

7. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellants that

the compensation under the other relevant heads are not properly assessed

and the same be enhanced as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

of India in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others

[(2017) 16 SCC 680] and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.

Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. [2019 (4) Mh.L.J. 1]. On these aspects,

the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company though submitted that,

the learned Tribunal has appropriately considered the aspects of the matter

do not dispute the settled legal position in the above referred Judgments.

8. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellants, the age of

the deceased was 25 years at the time of death. There is no serious dispute

on this aspect. The copy of the Passport of the deceased which is at

Exhibit -28 of the record shows that, the death of birth of the deceased was

18.10.1979. The date of accident is 10.10.2004. This shows that the age of

the deceased at the time of accident was 25 years. As per the Judgment of

Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and

Another, [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the multiplier applicable would be of 18.

9. Undisputedly, the deceased was unmarried and, therefore,

there would be 50% deduction from her monthly income towards living and

personal expenses. Considering her age, there would be 50% addition in

the income of the deceased towards future prospect as she was in the

permanent job of the said Air Line and below the age of 40 years. The

Appellants being the parents and sister of the deceased, the addition of

Rs.40,000/- each towards parental and filial compensation will have to be

included as per the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd.

(supra) and further as per the Judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), the

amount of Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate

will have to be included in the amount of compensation.

10. According to the learned Advocate for the Appellants, the

learned Tribunal has granted interest on lower side and the same be made

9%. For this, he placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court dated

07.03.2022 in Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri Nilesh Suresh

Bhandari and Others [2022 (3) All MR 524], wherein the interest @ Rs.9%

was granted. According to the learned Advocate for the Insurance

Company, appropriate rate of interest is considered by the learned Tribunal.

11. It is needless to state that the interest rates of the Bank keep on

fluctuating. The accident is of the year 2004. The learned Reference Court

granted interest @7% per annum. The same appears to be reasonable and

in tune with the interest by the Nationalized Banks at the relevant time and

hence, the same is maintained.

12. Learned Reference Court as seen from the observations in

paragraph 18 of the Judgment has deducted 30% towards income tax. As

there is no dispute on this aspect, same deduction towards income tax will

have to be made.

                                   Total Income -                                            Rs.      4,56,813/-
                            4.     Annual Income of the deceased                             Rs.     82,22,634/-
                                   (Rs.4,56,813/- x 18)
                            5.     Towards consortium                                     (+)Rs.      1,20,000/-
                            6.     Funeral Expenses                                       (+)Rs.           15000/-
                            7.     Loss of Estate                                         (+)Rs.           15000/-
                                   Total Compensation Payable to the Claimants.              Rs.     83,72,634/-

                            i]        Appellant No.1 - Father - Rs.40,00,000/-
                            ii]       Appellant No.2 - Mother - Rs.40,00,000/-
                            iii]      Appellant No.3 - Sister   - Rs.3,72,634/-