Bombay High Court
SMT. MUNIRA MOHIDDIN FAKIR AND ANR.versusSHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCES CO. LTD. AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- M M SATHAYE
Holding
The appeal is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation to Rs.14,17,200 with interest at 7.5% and holding the respondents jointly and severally liable.
Summary
The appellants, parents of a deceased motor accident victim, challenged a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs.4,30,000, arguing that the deceased's monthly income and multiplier were incorrectly assessed. The Tribunal had fixed the income at Rs.5,000 per month with a 50% deduction and a multiplier of 13. The High Court considered Supreme Court precedents allowing a step‑up in deemed income from Rs.5,000 to Rs.9,000 per month and applied a multiplier of 17 based on the deceased's age, adding 40% for future prospects and other heads of loss. The Court also increased the interest rate from 6% to 7.5% per annum. Consequently, the Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.14,17,200 (an enhanced amount of Rs.9,87,200 over the original award) and ordered the respondents to pay this jointly and severally with interest. The appeal was partly allowed and disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the monthly income of the deceased should be fixed at Rs.5,000 or increased based on statutory guidelines and case law.
- Whether the multiplier should be based on the age of the deceased and what factor is appropriate.
- Whether future prospect earnings and other heads of loss (funeral expenses, loss of consortium) should be included.
- Whether the interest rate awarded by the Tribunal (6%) is appropriate.
- Whether the respondents (insurance company, owner, driver) are jointly and severally liable for the enhanced compensation.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 166
Subjects
- motor accident
- compensation
- income calculation
- multiplier
- future prospects
- interest rate
- insurance liability
- Section 166
- no‑fault liability
Judgment
5-FA-1121-2016 @.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1121 OF 2016
Smt. Munira Mohiddin Fakir And Anr. … Appellants
Versus
Shriram General Insurances Co. Ltd. And Ors. … Respondents
***
Mr. Bhushan Walimbe a/w Mr. Vaibhav V. Arage for the Appellants.
Mr. Avesh Ghadge a/w Mr. Rajdeep Shitole i/by Mr. Shalini Shankar for the
Respondent No. 1-Insurance Company.
***
CORAM : M. M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 18th March, 2026.
P. C. :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned
Judgment. Admit. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1-Insurance
Company waives service. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties,
the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The appeal is filed by the original claimants challenging the Judgment
and Award dated 19.10.2015 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 88
of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Islampur, whereby the
Respondents (Insurance Company, owner and driver of the offending vehicle)
were held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 4,30,000/-, including the
amount under “no-fault liability.” The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6%
from the date of the claim application till realization.
3. Few facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:
Shubham 1
5-FA-1121-2016 @.doc
3.1 On 02.04.2012, the date of the accident, deceased Riyaz Mohiddin
Fakir was traveling with his friend in a Maruti car when the offending truck
(MH-10-Z-4070), driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the Maruti
car. The deceased sustained injuries which resulted in his death. A police case
was registered against the driver of the offending truck. The offending truck
was insured with Respondent No. 1 – Insurance Company.
3.2 The claim for compensation was made under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicle Act,1988 by parents of the deceased, contending inter alia that the
deceased was 28 years old and was working with a builder earning Rs.
15,000/- p.m. Compensation of Rs. 12,49,983/- was claimed with interest.
3.3 The owner and driver filed written statement contending inter alia that
the Maruti Car dashed on the offending truck which was standing near a
stream and the truck as well as truck driver has been falsely implicated in the
case.
3.4 Respondent No. 1-Insurance Company filed written statement
contending inter alia that offending truck was not insured and Maruti Car
was being driven in rash and negligent manner contributing to the accident.
The age and income of the deceased was denied.
3.5 Learned Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, assessed the income
of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month and after applying a deduction of
50% and multiplier of 13, arrived at the compensation amount.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellants/claimants submitted that the
income of the deceased ought to have been considered at Rs. 9,000/- per
month, being the average minimum wages applicable for skilled and
unskilled person in Zone-2 which covers Satara region where the deceased
was working. He further submitted that future prospects were not considered
at all and the multiplier should have been applied based on the age of the
deceased and not age of the dependents.
Shubham 2
5-FA-1121-2016 @.doc
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 – Insurance
Company relied upon the judgment in Shaikh Sadik Shaikh Rafique vs.
Reliance General Insu. Co. Ltd. and Others [2025 ACJ 1290] to contend that
the formula adopted therein should be applied and at most, an increase of Rs.
500/- per year from 2004 can be considered. He fairly submitted that the
multiplier may be applied based on the age of the deceased.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
7. It is an admitted position that there is no documentary evidence on
record adduced by the Claimants about the income of the deceased. The
deceased was 28 years old and according to the oral evidence of Claimant
No. 2 he was working with builder and earning Rs. 15,000/-.
8. In Shaikh Sadik Shaikh Rafique (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court
after considering Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Ins.Co [2011 ACJ 2436 (SC)] in which Rs. 4,500/- was considered as
appropriate income of ‘a coolie’ in the year 2004, has held that at least Rs.
500/- p.m. for successive years can be applied. Applying the said formula
from 2004 till 2012 (when the present accident has taken place) Rs. 4,000/-
(Rs. 500 x 8) can be added safely. If the said amount is added to the amount
of Rs. 5000/- already granted by the Tribunal, the amount ultimately comes
to Rs. 9,000/- p.m. In that view of the matter, the income of the deceased can
be safely increased from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 9,000/- p.m.
9. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, since there
is no proof about the service or business, 40% future prospect can be safely
applied and other heads such as loss of consortium etc. can be applied.
10. Considering the Judgment of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.
Ltd vs. Mandala Yadagari Goud & Ors. (2019) 5 SCC 554 relied upon by the
Appellant/Claimants which takes stock of the earlier Judgments of Sube
Shubham 3
5-FA-1121-2016 @.doc
Singh Vs. Sham Singh (2018) 3 SCC 18, Munna Lal Jain Vs. Vipin Kumar
Sharma, (2015) 6 SCC 347, Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC
65, and Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, the age of the deceased will
have to be taken as a basis for applying multiplier of 17.
11. Considering that the impugned Award is of the year 2015 the interest
granted @ 6% is found to be on lower side. It is accordingly increased to
7.5%.
12. Accordingly the Appellants are held entitled to receive and recover
from Respondents jointly and severely an amount of Rs. 14,17,200/- with
interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim application till realization. It is as
per the calculations given below.
Monthly Income = Rs. 9,000/-
Annual Income = Rs. 1,08,000/-
Multiplier 17 = Rs. 18,36,000/-
Add: 40% future prospects = Rs. 18,36,000 + 40% =
Rs. 25,70,400/-
Less ½ deduction for personal expenses = Rs. 12,85,200
Total income = Rs. 12,85,200/-
Funeral Expenses = Rs.18,000/-
Loss of Estate = Rs. 18,000/-
Consortium for parents Rs. 48,000 x 2 = Rs. 96,000/-
Total compensation = Rs. 14,17,200/-
Less awarded by Tribunal = Rs. 4,30,000/-
Enhanced amount = Rs. 9,87,200/-
13. First Appeal is partly allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
14. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of
this order.
Digitally
signed by
TALLE
TALLE SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO
ASHOKRAO Date:
2026.03.18
18:20:20
[ M. M. SATHAYE, J. ]
+0530
Shubham 4
Checking your session…