Bombay High Court
Anisa Begum Ayuj Khan And Ors vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its … on 30 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:20057
-1- FA-3465 & 3556 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3465 OF 2022
1 Parveen Bee Wd/o Shaikh Feroz,
Age : 31 years, Occu. : Household,
R/o. Pathan Mohalla, Ambad,
Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna
2. Hajra Fatema d/o. Shaikh Mohammad Feroz,
Age : 10 years, Occu : Education,
U/G of Appellant No.1,
R/o. As above.
3. Shaikh Habib S/o. Mohammad Feroz,
Age: 7 years, Occu. : Education,
U/G of Appellant No.1,
R/o. As above.
4. Shaikh Shamshoddin S/o. Shaikh Habiboddin,
Age : 61 years, Occu. : Nil.,
R/o. Pathan Mohalla, Ambad,
Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna
5. Saida Begum W/o. Shamshuddin Shaikh,
Age : 54 years, Occu. : Nil,
R/o. Pathan Mohalla, Ambad,
Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna. ... Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
Versus
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Branch Manager,
Usmanpura, Aurangabad.
2. Rahul s/o. Pralhadrao Malode,
Age : 36 years, Occu. : Owner & Driver,
R/o. House No.14, Near MSEB Office,
Paithan, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.
Mobile No. : 9767051006. ... Respondents
......
Mr. Shaikh Kayyum Najir, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. Mohit R. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
......
-2- FA-3465 & 3556 of 2022
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3556 OF 2022
1. Anisa Begum wd/o. Ayaj Khan,
Age : 34 years, Occu. : Household,
R/o. Pathan Mohalla, Ambad,
Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
2. Anam d/o. Ayaj Khan Pathan,
Age : 15 years, Occu. : Education,
U/G of Appellant No.1.
R/o. As above.
3. Anshara d/o. Ayaj Khan Pathan,
Age : 10 years, Occu. : Education,
U/G of Appellant No.1,
R/o. As above.
4. Mahemood Khan S/o. Ashraf Khan Pathan,
Age : 75 years, Occu. : Nil,
R/o. Pathan Mohalla, Ambad,
Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
5. Shakila Begum w/o. Mahemood Khan Pathan,
Age : 70 years, Occu. : Nil.,
R/o. Pathan Mohalla, Ambad,
Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna. ... Appellants
Versus
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Though its Branch Manager,
Usmanpura, Aurangabad.
2. Rahul S/o. Pralhadrao Malode,
Age : 36 years, Occu. : Owner & Driver,
R/o. House No.14, Near MSEB Office,
Paithan, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad
Mobile : 9767051006. ... Respondents
......
Mr. Shaikh Kayyum Najir, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. Mohit R. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
......
-3- FA-3465 & 3556 of 2022
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 23 JULY 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 30 JULY 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Both appeals are arising out of judgment and order
dated 23.08.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Aurangabad in M.A.C.P. Nos. 299 of 2018 and 300 of
2018, original claimants, who are appellants herein are seeking
enhancement of compensation.
BRIEF FACTS IN THE APPEAL NO.3465 OF 2022
2. Appellant’s case is that, on 29.11.2017 deceased
Mohammad Feroz Shaikh Shamshuddin was traveling on his
Passion Pro motorcycle to go to Ambad. When he was in the
vicinity of Lalwadi Phata, a Vista car coming from his backside in
excessively high speed and being driven in rash and negligent
manner, gave dash to the motorcycle causing serious head injury
and on being shifted to the hospital, he was declared dead. On
report, crime was registered against respondent no.2 for offence
under sections 279, 337, 338, 304A and 427 of Indian Penal Code
at Ambad Police Station.
3. Appellants (original claimants) set up a case that, at
-4- FA-3465 & 3556 of 2022
the time of accident, deceased Mohd. Feroz was 33 years of age and
was rendering service in Matsodari Cable Network and was
earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He was the sole bread earner and
source of income for his family, which claimants, his heirs have
lost permanently and thereby claim of total Rs.25,00,000/- by way
of compensation was asserted under various heads.
4. Insurance Company and respondent driver and owner
of Vista car contested the claim denying negligence, claim to be
exorbitant and excess and unsubstantiated. Learned tribunal by
judgment and award dated 23.08.2022 recorded a finding that
claimants proved that deceased Feroz died in motorcycle accident
dated 29.11.2017 due to rash and negligence driving of offending
vehicle vista car driven and owned by original respondent no.1 and
insured by respondent no.2 and also held claimants to be entitled
awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.13,74,600 with @ 7.5%
interest per annum and directed it to be paid by respondent nos.1
and 2 jointly and severally.
5. Dissatisfied by the quantum of maintenance, present
appeal has been filed on various grounds raised in appeal memo.
Heard learned counsel for appellants. He would submit that,
claimant was working as Supervisor and earning Rs.10,000/- per
-5- FA-3465 & 3556 of 2022
month. However, learned tribunal only considered Rs.6,000/- per
month as notional income. That, no amount is granted under loss
of consortium and future prospects. Therefore, indulgence of this
court is urged for in enhancing compensation.
6. Learned counsel for Insurance Company supported the
judgment and award by pointing out that there was no oral and
documentary evidence in support of so called service of deceased
Feroz. That, therefore learned tribunal was left with no other
alternative, but to consider notional income. That, learned tribunal
has correctly awarded amounts under various heads and hence,
urges to dismiss the appeal.
BRIEF FACTS IN THE APPEAL NO. 3556 OF 2022
7. Heirs of deceased Ayaz Khan Mahmood Khan Pathan
filed M.A.C.P. No.299 of 2018 setting up a case that, on 29.11.2017
Ayaz Khan was a pillion driver of the motorcycle driven by
deceased Feroz and they were proceedings towards Ambad. When
they had reached, Lalwadi Phata, offending vehicle Vista car came
from backside and gave severe dash to the motorcycle causing fatal
injuries to Ayaz, who, while undergoing treatment succumbed. It is
their case that, crime was registered against Vista car driver.
-6- FA-3465 & 3556 of 2022
8. It is their further contention that, deceased Ayaz, who
was 35 years of age, was working as Supervisor with Unity Land
Developers and earned Rs.10,000 per month and his income was
sole source of income for the family, which they have permanently
loss on account of accidental death of Ayaz and thereby under
various heads they set up a case of Rs.25,00,000/- and prayed that
the compensation should be directed to be paid by original
respondent no.1 owner and driver of Vista Car.
9. Above claim was also resisted by respondent nos.1
and 2 denying negligence, income and age etc.
10. Learned tribunal, after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence, was pleased to partly alow the judgment
and order directing respondent nos.1 and 2 to jointly pay
Rs.12,99,000 along with interest @ 7.5% per annum
Dissatisfied by the above award, instant appeal has
been filed on various grounds raised in appeal memo.
11. Both, deceased Feroz and deceased Ayaz seem to be
traveling on one motorcycle as rider and pillion rider. While their
motorcycle was in the vicinity of Lalwadi Phata, vehicle owned and
driven by respondent no.2 gave dash to the motorcycle from rear
-7- FA-3465 & 3556 of 2022
side causing severe injuries to both, who later on succumbed to the
same and hence, heirs of each of the deceased have preferred
M.A.C.P. Nos. 299 and 300 of 2018, which are dealt and decided by
learned tribunal on same day i.e. on 23.08.2022.
12. Heirs of deceased Feroz has asserted that, he worked in
Matsodari Cable Network and earned Rs.10,000/- per month. But,
admittedly, there is no oral and documentary evidence in that
regard.
Similarly, even heirs of deceased Ayaz too set up a
claim that, deceased worked as Supervisor with Unity Land
Developers and earned Rs.10,000/- per month, but again no oral or
documentary evidence in that direction was placed before tribunal.
13. Resultantly, learned tribunal was left with no other
alternative, but to consider notional income. After appreciating the
police papers, learned tribunal has attributed negligence to the
original respondent no.1, who indisputably insured by respondent
Insurance Company.
14. In appeal, there is no serious challenge to the above
findings by the present appellants. Only grievance set up is that
tribunal has not granted loss of consortium and loss of future
-8- FA-3465 & 3556 of 2022
income. Learned counsel for Insurance Company would point out
to the table drawn by the tribunal in its judgment in paragraph 17
and pointed out that, apart from considering notional income as
Rs.6,000, amount is granted for future prospects as well as loss of
consortium to wife and parents.
15. Tribunal has granted loss towards consortium to wife
and children Rs.44,000/- each. However, same benefits ought to
have been extended to the parents also i.e. present appellant nos. 4
and 5 in both appeals.
16. Therefore, in addition to the quantum awarded by the
tribunal, parents are also entitled for Rs.40,000/- each plus 10%
(Rs.4,000/-), which comes to Rs. 44,000/- each towards
consortium, in both appeals.
17. In the result, First Appeal Nos. 3465 of 2022 and 3556
of 2022 preferred by the original claimants are partly allowed with
proportionate costs as under :-
Order in First Appeal No. 3465 of 2022
(I) Impugned judgment and award dated 23.08.2022, passed by
Member of M.A.C.T., Aurangabad in M.A.C.P. No.300 of 2018 is
modified :
-9- FA-3465 & 3556 of 2022
(a) Respondent no.1 – Insurance Company to pay
enhanced compensation of Rs.88,000/- to parents i.e.
original claimant nos.4 and 5 within 12 weeks from
today along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of registration of claim petition till its realization.
Order in First Appeal No. 3556 of 2022
(II) Impugned judgment and award dated 23.08.2022, passed by
Member of M.A.C.T., Aurangabad in M.A.C.P. No.299 of 2018 is
modified :
(a) Respondent no.1 – Insurance Company to pay
enhanced compensation of Rs.88,000/- to parents i.e.
original claimant nos.4 and 5 within 12 weeks from
today along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of registration of claim petition till its realization.
(III) Modified award be prepared accordingly.
(IV) Rest of the award is maintained.
(V) Claimants to pay court fees on enhanced compensation as per
rules.
(VI) On deposit of the amount by Insurance Company,
appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw the same.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
[ad_1]
Source link