Bombay High Court
MRS. RAZIA SAEED AHMED PATANKAR AND ORS.versusM/S. DHAVANI TRANSPORT AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court held that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier, omitting future prospects and proper consortium, and accordingly modified the award to Rs.36,32,972 with interest.
Summary
The appellants, the widow, minor daughter and mother of a deceased seafarer, appealed against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award of Rs.23,61,248, contending that the Tribunal misapplied the multiplier, omitted future prospect earnings, and undervalued consortium. The Tribunal had held the truck driver negligent and made the insurer and owner jointly liable, but used a multiplier of 16, ignored a 40% future‑prospect factor, and fixed consortium at Rs.20,000 per claimant. Relying on precedents (National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance v. Nanu Ram), the Court found the Tribunal’s calculations erroneous. It increased the multiplier to 17, incorporated a 40% future‑prospect addition, raised consortium to Rs.48,000 per claimant, and recalculated the total compensation to Rs.36,32,972 with appropriate interest. The Court ordered the respondents to pay the revised amount within eight weeks and granted interest from the date of filing.
Issues considered
- Whether the multiplier of 16 used by the Tribunal should be corrected to 17 based on the deceased's age.
- Whether future prospect earnings at 40% should be included in the compensation calculation.
- Whether the consortium amount should be Rs.48,000 per claimant instead of Rs.20,000.
- Whether interest on the awarded amount should be calculated from the date of filing of the petition.
- Whether the award should be modified to reflect the corrected calculations.
Subjects
- motor accident
- compensation
- multiplier
- future prospects
- consortium
- insurance liability
- interest
- award modification
- negligence
Judgment
12-FA-136-2007.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SATISH
FIRST APPEAL NO.136 OF 2007
RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR
Digitally signed by
1. Mrs.Razia Saeed Ahmed Patankar, ]
SATISH RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR 24 Years, ]
Date: 2026.08.20
18:36:26 +0530 ]
2. Ms.Salika Saeed Ahmed Patankar, ]
2 Years,Through mother(Appellant No.1)]
]
3. Mrs.Habiba Dawood Patankar, ]
62 Years, ]
]
All Residing at :- Flat No.16, Moon Star, ]
Plot No.393, T.P.S. III, 16th Road, ] ...Appellants
Bandra (W), Bombay 50. ] (Original Claimants)
Versus
1. M/s.Dhavani Transport, ]
Having Registered Office at 89, ]
P. D. Mello Road, Near Loha Bhuvan, ] ...Opponent No.1
Bombay – 400 009. ]
]
2. Mr.Balu Bhagwan Mane, ]
27 Years, C/o. : Verma Transport, ]
Masjid Bunder, Bombay : 400 009. ]
Residing at : 1186, Dnyaneshwar ]
Padvika Chawk, Shivaji Nagar, ]
Pune – 5. ] ...Opponent No.2
]
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ]
Oriental House, J. Tata Road, ]
Bombay – 20. ] ...Opponent No.3
(Respondents)
====================================================
Satish Sangar 1/6
12-FA-136-2007.doc
====================================================
Ms.Ketki Gokhale i/b. Mr.Avinash Advocates for Appellants.
Gokhale:-
Mr.Saumen S. Vidyarthi (Through Advocate for Respondent No.3–
V.C.):- Insurance Company.
====================================================
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 17th AUGUST 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned Advocate for the Appellants/Claimants and
learned Advocate Shri.Vidyarthi for the Respondent No.3–Insurance
Company.
2. The Appeal is filed only on the ground that proper multiplier
was not considered and future prospect is also not considered while
dealing with the claim of the deceased. There was further submission
that the compensation towards consortium should also be considered
on the basis of subsequent judgments. With their assistance, I have
gone through the Award.
3. The Claimant No.1 is the widow whereas the Claimant No.2 is
the minor daughter and Claimant No.3 is the mother of the deceased.
The accident took place on 28th November 1989 at about 12.30 p.m.
Satish Sangar 2/6
12-FA-136-2007.doc
At that time, the deceased along with his friend were coming on a
scooter on Signal Hill Avenue Road from east–west. The deceased was
driving the scooter. At that time, the offending vehicle came at a great
speed from west–east in opposite direction and gave dash to the scooter
near electric pole. The scooter was dragged for a distance of about 30
feet. The scooter was entangled in the front portion of the truck. The
driver and the pillion rider both sustained injuries.
4. The deceased was a young boy of 28 and half years. He had
joined Shipping Management Company. At the relevant time, he was
posted in South France as a Third Officer. Even he got promotion and
he became a Second Officer in 1989. In that year, he was earning 1600
US$ per month.
5. On this background, a Claim Petition was filed. The Opponent
No.1 is the owner of the vehicle. The negligence on the part of the
truck driver is denied. The widow of the deceased gave evidence so also
three witnesses were examined on behalf of the Claimants. The
Respondents have not adduced any evidence. On the basis of this
evidence, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal–Mumbai (“Tribunal”)
has concluded about the negligence of the truck driver and held the
insurer and insured jointly and severally liable.
Satish Sangar 3/6
12-FA-136-2007.doc
6. The calculation done by the Tribunal is as follows:-
(i) The salary to the tune of 1600 US$ for 8 months and
accordingly, 12800 US$ for one year were considered and
considering the dependency, 1/3rd was considered towards
the personal expenses and the dependency was arrived at
8534 US$. About this, there is no dispute. In the year 1989,
the conversion rate for US$ was Rs.17/-. There is no dispute.
(ii) The age of the deceased was 28.
(iii) The multiplier was considered as 16. It ought to have been
17 considering the age. There is no dispute.
(iv) The future prospects were not considered. It ought to have
been considered and as per judgment of National Insurance
Company Limited V/s. Pranay Sethi1, considering the age
and occupation, it ought to have been 40%.
(v) The consortium of only Rs.20,000/- was considered. As per
the judgment in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.
V/s. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram2, it ought to have been
Rs.48,000/- for every Applicant which includes, the widow,
minor daughter and the mother.
(vi) That is how the compensation of Rs.23,61,248/- (Rupees
Twenty Three Lakh Sixty One Thousand Two Hundred
Forty Eight) was considered.
7. After hearing this submission, the Tribunal has wrongly applied
the multiplier of 16. It ought to have been 17 and the future prospect
1 AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5157
2 AIROnline 2018 SC 1249
Satish Sangar 4/6
12-FA-136-2007.doc
at the rate of 40% and the consortium of Rs.48,000/- (Forty Eight
Thousand Rupees) per Applicant ought to have been granted. The
calculation should be as follows:-
Sr.No. Heads Compensation
Awarded/Stepped up
(i) Monthly Income:- US$ 1600
(ii) Annual Income + US$ 12800+US$5120=
Future Prospects:- 17,920 US$
(iii) Deduction towards Personal US$ 5972
Expenses and Dependency:-
(v) Total Income:- US$ 11948
(vi) Multiplier:- 17XUS$ 11948 =US$ 2,03,116
(vii) Rate of exchange per dollar Rs.34,52,972/-
Rs.17 (referred in Award):-
(viii) Loss of Consortium:- Rs.1,44,000/-
(Rs.48,000/- per head3)
(ix) Funeral Expenses:- Rs.18,000/-
(x) Loss of Estate:- Rs.18,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.36,32,972/- plus interest
Awarded:-
Compensation awarded by Rs.23,61,248/-
the Tribunal:-
Amount to be paid now:- Rs.12,71,724/-
8. In view of the above, following order is passed:-
-: O R D E R :-
(a) The Appeal is allowed.
3 Stepped up from Rs.20,000/- per head to Rs.48,000/- per head
Satish Sangar 5/6
12-FA-136-2007.doc
(b) The Award dated 20th July 2006 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal–Mumbai is modified as follows:-
(i) The Respondents are directed to pay jointly and
severally a compensation of Rs.36,32,972/- (Rupees
Thirty Six Lakh Thirty Two Thousand Nine Hundred
Seventy Two) (now the Appellants will be entitled to
get only Rs.12,71,724/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Seventy
One Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Four).
(ii) The Respondents are directed to pay this amount
within a period of 8 weeks. The Tribunal has granted
interest of 6% per annum from June-2004 till recovery.
It ought to have been from the date of filing of the
Petition. The Respondents to pay the deficit on original
amount awarded.
(iii) The Respondents are directed to pay 7.5% interest on
the amount of Rs.12,71,724/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh
Seventy One Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Four).
from the date of Petition till the amount is deposited.
(iv) Additional Court Fee be paid.
9. In the light of the above observations, the Appeal stands
disposed of.
[S. M. MODAK, J.]
Satish Sangar 6/6
Checking your session…