Bombay High Court
KARAM HUSSAIN SHAIKH AND ORS.versusJAIN DALCHAND TEJPAL AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.6,29,630, directing the insurer to pay the original award plus the enhanced amount with interest.
Summary
The appellants, original claimants in a motor accident case, sought enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, from Rs.1,44,000 to a higher amount. The Tribunal had used a notional monthly income of Rs.2,500 and a 1/2 deduction for personal expenses, but the appellants argued for Rs.3,000 as the correct notional income and a 1/3 deduction, citing dependents including minor siblings. The Court noted that the Supreme Court decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 was not considered by the Tribunal and applied its principles to recompute the compensation. Using the corrected income, a 40% future prospects addition, a 1/3 personal expense deduction, and a multiplier of 18 for the deceased’s age, the Court arrived at a total compensation of Rs.7,73,630, less the original award, resulting in an enhanced amount of Rs.6,29,630. The Court ordered the insurance company to pay the original and enhanced amounts with interest within eight weeks and disposed of the civil application.
Issues considered
- The appropriate notional monthly income of the deceased for compensation calculation
- The correct proportion for deduction of personal expenses (1/2 vs 1/3)
- Application of the Supreme Court precedent National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi to the compensation computation
- The quantum of enhanced compensation payable to the claimants
Subjects
- Motor Accident Compensation
- Notional Income
- Personal Expenses Deduction
- Multiplier
- Supreme Court Precedent
- Insurance Claim
- Compensation Enhancement
Judgment
HMK 15. FA-2305-2005.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2305 OF 2005
Digitally
SAYYED
SAEED
signed by
SAYYED
SAEED ALI
WITH
ALI AHMED ALI
AHMED Date:
2026.07.07
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1349 OF 2018
ALI 17:29:12
+0530
Karam Hussain Shaikh & Ors. ….Appellants/Applicants
Versus
Jain Dalchand Tejpal & Anr. .…Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
Ms. Ketki Gokhale i/by Mr. Avinash M. Gokhale for the Appellants/
Applicants.
Ms. Urmila K. Samil for the Respondents.
__________________________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 07th JULY 2026
P. C. :
1. This appeal was admitted on 25th April, 2006.
2. This appeal is filed by the original claimants seeking enhancement of
compensation of Rs. 1,44,000/- awarded vide order dated 05 th May, 2005
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai (Tribunal).
3. I have heard learned counsel for the claimants and the Insurance
Company.
4. Admittedly, on the day when the Trial Court had decided this matter,
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 1 was not available. Therefore,
various heads of compensation and the mode of computation as per the
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680
1 of 3
HMK 15. FA-2305-2005.doc
decision of the Pranay Sethi (Supra) could not have been considered by the
Tribunal. Therefore, to that extent, the order of the Tribunal requires
modification.
5. The claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning
Rs.4,500/-. The Tribunal has considered Rs.2,500/- per month as notional
income for computing the compensation. The deceased was working in
garage as a mechanic. In the evidence led by the claimants, it has come on
record that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, in
my view, the notional income of the deceased should be considered as
Rs.3,000/- per month for the purpose of calculating the compensation.
Even otherwise, looking at the nature of work Rs.3,000/- per month cannot
be considered unreasonable.
6. The second submission is that the Tribunal has considered deduction
towards personal expenses as 1/2, whereas it is the submission of the
claimants that deduction should be considered 1/3. The family of the
deceased consist of father, mother and three siblings, two of which were
minors. Therefore, it cannot be said that only mother was dependent. There
were siblings, who were minor, who can be considered as dependent on the
income of the deceased. Therefore, deduction towards personal expenses
should be 1/3 and not 1/2.
7. The revised compensation after adopting the above reasoning and
applying the decision of Pranay Sethi (Supra) is as under :-
Particulars Amount
1. Annual income (Rs.3,000/- x 12) Rs. 36,000/-
Add : 40% future prospects Rs. 14,400/-
Rs. 50,400/-
2 of 3
HMK 15. FA-2305-2005.doc
Deduction of 1/3 Rs. 16,632/-
Rs. 33,770/-
After applying multiplier of 18 (Age 19) Rs. 6,41,630/-
2. Loss of income (2 Claimants) Rs. 96,000/-
3. Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/-
Total Rs. 7,73,630/-
(Less) Awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1,44,000/-
Enhanced Compensation Rs. 6,29,630/-
8. The enhanced compensation is Rs.6,29,630/- (Rs.7,73,630/- (-)
Rs.1,44,000/-). The original claimants are entitled to the enhanced
compensation and the original compensation alongwith interest.
9. The Insurance Company to deposit the original amount and the
enhanced amount alongwith interest with the Tribunal within eight weeks
from today and the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same.
10. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
11. Consequently, Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of
accordingly.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
3 of 3
Checking your session…