Partly allowed

Abdul Raheman Suleman Pathan and Another v. Haribhau Narayan Mahadik and Another

Bombay HC21 Jan 2014FA/42/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This first appeal concerns a motor accident death claim where the appellant parents of a 10-year-old deceased sought enhanced compensation. The court held that the initial award was insufficient, ordering an additional Rs. 25,000 covering funeral expenses and consortium, with interest from the date of the claim petition.

What did the court decide?

Award of additional Rs. 25,000 with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition for funeral expenses and consortium.

Abdul Raheman Suleman Pathan and Another Vs Haribhau… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

FA No.42/1997

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.42/1997

¶5

1) Abdul Raheman Suleman Pathan Age: 43 Yrs., occu. Fitter,

¶6

2) Hajerabi Abdul Raheman Pathan Age:40 Yrs., occu. Household.

¶7

Both r/o Subhedar Wasti,
Ward No.2, Shrirampur,
District Ahmednagar. - Appellant
(orig.Claimant Nos.1&2)

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1)Haribhau Narayan Mahadik
Age:Adult, occ. Business,
r/o Mahadik Wasti, Belapur (kh.)
Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶10

2)Baban Asaram Wable,
Age: Adult, occu. Driver,
R/o Mahadik Wasti, Belapur (bk.)
Tq. Shrirampur,
District Ahmedangar. - RESPONDENTS
(orig.Resp.Nos.1&2)

¶11

*****

¶12

Mr.VS Bedre, Advocate for Appellant/s;
Mr.AB Kale,Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶13

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.
DATE : 21st January, 2014.

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶15

1)Heard both the learned Counsel. The appeal
is admitted on 31.1.1997. The claimants/appellants
question dismissal of Award dated 14.6.1996 and
confining the same to the extent of amount received
under the banner of No Fault Liability of Rs.

¶16

2 FA No.42/1997

¶17

25,000/-.

¶18

2)The claimants are the parents of deceased
-Zakir Abdul Raheman Pathan, who was 10 years old at
the material time. He was moving along with his
cousin, holding bicycle in hand by left side of the
road. The respondent was plying tractor bearing
No.MHU 8983 with trolley No.MWA 321. It is alleged
to be driven in excessive speed and dashed them from
back side. The deceased was taken to hospital and
succumbed to the injury.
3)The claimants asserted that deceased would
have, if survived, rendered valuable services to the
petitioners. Because of his sudden death, they have
been deprived of source of maintenance, expectation
and even are under a nervous situation.
4)The learned Member (as then he was) was of
the view that the deceased Zakir was ten years old
when the accident has taken place and was a school-
going boy and it is also not in controversy that he
suffered the injury owing to the accident. The
learned Member refused to entertain the claim
petition of Rs.1,00,000/- only on the ground that it
would be a hypothesis to entertain such petition and
the claimants should be satisfied having awarded Rs.
25,000/-.

¶19

5)Considering the age of the deceased and the
claimants ages, the learned Member certainly lost
sight of the fact that death of ten years old son has
put them in dark; all hopes which they had from
their son have vanished and tarnished. There was no
parallel to agonies they have faced due to sudden
untimely death. In the situation, it was expected to

¶20

3 FA No.42/1997

¶21

have, at least, considered to award for funeral
expenses and consortium. Considering the time in the
matter as death has taken place in 1990, additional
amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)
needs to be awarded, which will carry interest @ 7.5%
p.a.from the date of claim petition. First Appeal is
partly allowed in aforesaid terms, with costs.

¶22

sd/-
(K.U.CHANDIWAL)
 JUDGE

¶23

bdv/

¶24

Authenticated copy

¶25

(BD VADNERE, PS)

Abdul Raheman Suleman Pathan and Another v. Haribhau Narayan Mahadik and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Raheman Suleman Pathan and Another v. Haribhau Narayan Mahadik and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Prasanna Dhirendra Yelnoorkar and Ors.

Lata Gautam Waghmare and Anr. Vs Babulal Ramchandra Bagale and Anr.

The State of Mah Vs Babasaheb Bappaji Aage and Anr.

Suvarna Rajabhau Ghodke and Others Vs M/S. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another

Raganath Buwaji Pawar Deceased through Lrs Bhausaheb and Others Vs State of Mahaarashtra

Baban Nathu Pawar Vs State of Maha