[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sulochana Siddharam Mulajkar vs Iqbal Hussain Abid Hussain And Othrs on 12 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:12188
ppn 1 2.fa-724.12.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
by PRACHI
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PRACHI PRANESH
PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR
NANDIWADEKAR
Date: 2026.03.12 FIRST APPEAL NO.724 OF 2012
17:42:27 +0530
1) Smt. Sulochana Siddharam Mulajkar,
Widow of the deceased,
Aged about 47 years,
2) Kumari Asha Siddharam Mulajkar
Daughter of the deceased,
Aged 25 years,
3) Kumar Sachin Siddharam Mulajkar,
Son of the deceased,
Aged 21 years,
4) Kumar Ganesh Siddharam Mulajkar,
Son of the deceased, Aged 19 years,
All R/at Kamala Nehru Nagar, Dhobighat
(Sambhaji Nagar), Ulhasnagar - 1,
Taluka Kalyan, Dist. Thane .....Appellants
(Original Applicants)
V/s.
1) Shri. Iqbal Hussain Abid Hussain
R. No. 45, Firazbai Lane,
Bombay - 400 008.
2) The Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Bombay Central,
Mumbai-400 008.
3) Smt. Noorbhanu S. Sultan
Bharat Lokchand Bazar, Shop No.11
Maulana Shaukatali Road, Mumbai 400 008.
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 12/03/2026 20:51:59 :::
ppn 2 2.fa-724.12.doc
4) National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
3. Middleton Street, Calcutta.
5) Smt. Bhagirathibai Mahadeo (since deceased)
Mulajkar,R/at-Post Muram,
Umarga, Dist. Usmanabad. .... Respondents
(Original opp party)
----
Mr. Yogesh Pande a/w Ms. Prachi J. Deshpande for the appellants.
Ms. Pinky Bhansali for respondent no.2.
Mr. Himanshu Jha i/by Ms. Shalini Shankar for respondent no.4.
----
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 12 March 2026
Judgment :
1. This appeal is filed by the original applicants for enhancement of
compensation which was granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
('Tribunal').
2. By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing at the
admission stage.
3. The claim was filed by the dependents of the deceased who died
while travelling in a Tempo which was dashed by S.T. Bus at Shahapur.
Because of the collision, the deceased-husband of applicant no.1 died on
the spot. On the day of the accident, he was aged 35 years and as per the
claimants, he was earning Rs.2,500/- per month from the business of
ppn 3 2.fa-724.12.doc
selling vegetables. The claim was, therefore, made for Rs.5 lakhs.
4. The Tribunal framed various issues, which are reproduced in
paragraph 5 of its order. The Tribunal gave a finding that the death
occurred on account of the accident and the drivers of the tempo as well as
S.T. bus were equally liable and therefore, joint and several liability was
imposed on the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC)
and the insurance company.
5. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,95,000/- alongwith interest at 6% p.a.
from the date of the application i.e., 5 October 1992 which was to be
apportioned between the MSRTC and insurance company Rs.97,500/-
equally. The Tribunal has awarded solatium, funeral and loss on account of
love and affection of Rs.10,000/- each, loss of estate of Rs.5,000/- and loss
of earning of Rs.1,60,000/-, thereby to compensation aggregating to
Rs.1,95,000/-.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal
was not justified in taking Rs.1,500/- as income per month. The deceased
was a vegetable vendor and even on a reasonable and fair estimate, the
income would have been around Rs.3,000/- per month but in the
application, they had claimed only Rs.2,500/- per month. She further
submitted that the Tribunal erred in not considering future prospects and
ppn 4 2.fa-724.12.doc
has also not awarded consortium compensation to the four dependents. She
further submitted that the amount awarded towards solatium, funeral and
transport expenses etc. was on the lower side. She, therefore, submitted
that the appellants are justified in seeking enhancement of the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
7. The learned counsel for the MSRTC and the insurance company have
strongly opposed the above submissions. It is their submission that no
evidence has been led for income of Rs.2,500/- per month. They further
submit that the estimate of amount towards solatium, funeral & transport
expenses etc. made by the Tribunal is reasonable. They, therefore, prayed
that the present appeal be dismissed without any prayer for enhancement
being granted.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
respondents.
9. At the first instance, the deceased was a vegetable vendor. In such
type of vocation, insisting on the proof of income cannot be accepted. The
Court has to consider on an estimated basis as to what would be the
reasonable income of such a vegetable vendor. The applicants have claimed
Rs.2,500/- as income per month and the Tribunal has allowed Rs.1,500/- as
income per month.
ppn 5 2.fa-724.12.doc
10. In my view, in such type of cases, insistence of evidence cannot be the
basis for not accepting the claim of the claimants. However, the claimant
should have given some details about the daily sales and profit which
would have assisted the Tribunal and the Court to arrive at the estimate of
correct income. In the absence of the above, in my view, ends of justice
would be met by taking Rs.2,000/- per month as monthly income of the
deceased.
11. With respect to future prospect is concerned, post the impugned
judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1, has observed based on the
age of the deceased, the percentage to be taken on account of future
prospects. The deceased was 35 years old and therefore, as per paragraph
61 (iv) of the said judgment, the future prospects are taken at 40%. There
is no dispute qua the multiplier applicable which is taken by the Tribunal
since the age of the deceased was 35 years.
12. Insofar as the compensation under the conventional head is
concerned, relying upon paragraph 54 of the said judgment in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra), the funeral expenses and loss of estate is taken at
Rs.18,000/- each. Insofar as the loss of love and affection and other general
heads are concerned, same will be covered under the head consortium
1 2017 ACJ 2700
ppn 6 2.fa-724.12.doc
which is Rs.48,000/- per dependent and since in the instant case, there are
four dependents, the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.48,000 X
4). The revised enhanced compensation is worked out as under :-
Particulars Amount
Notional Income considered per month income Rs. 24,000/-
Rs.2000 X 12
Add: 40% future prospects Rs. Rs. 9,600/-
Total Rs. 33,600/-
Multiplier Applicable 16 (since age 35) Rs. 5,37,600/-
(Rs.33,600 X 16)
Deduction towards personal expenses 1/4 Rs. 1,34,400/-
(since four dependents)
Loss of Dependency Rs. 4,03,200/-
Loss of Consortium (Rs.48,000 X 4) Rs. 1,92,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/-
Total Compensation Rs. 2,28,000/-
Compensation entitled Rs. 6,31,200/-
(Rs.4,03,200+Rs.2,28,000)
(Less) Compensation Allowable by Tribunal Rs. 1,95,000/-
Total Compensation Payable (enhanced amount Rs. 4,36,200/-
entitled)
13. After deducting the amount allowed by the Tribunal, the enhanced
additional amount entitled to the claimant is Rs.4,36,200/- alongwith
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 5 October
1992. The compensation including enhanced compensation should be paid
ppn 7 2.fa-724.12.doc
equally by MSRTC and the insurance company within 8 weeks from today.
14. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(JITENDRA JAIN, J.)
