Dismissed

Mohd Farhat Abdul Rehman Deshmukh v. Hazrat Dastagir Kazi and Others

Bombay HC27 Jul 2017FA/630/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award, the High Court held that since the deceased was a student at marriageable age with no evidence of future employment, the Tribunal did not err in refusing notional income compensation. The appeal for enhancement was dismissed as devoid of substance.

What did the court decide?

The appeal for enhancement of compensation was dismissed; the impugned award of Rs. 1,00,000/- was upheld.

Mohd Farhat Abdul Rehman Deshmukh Vs Hazrat Dastagir… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

FA 630/2004

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.630 OF 2004

¶5

1. Md. Farhat s/o. Abdul Raheman Deshmukh, Age: 55 years, Occu. Agri & Business, (Deceased his L.Rs.)

¶6

1.1 Md. Rafat s/o. Mohd. Farhat Deshmukh, Age: 35 years, Occu. Agri.,

¶7

1.2 Md. Firasat s/o. Md. Farhat Deshmukh, Age: 26 years, Occu. Agri.,

¶8

1.3 Md. Azmat s/o. Md. Farhat Deshmukh, Age: 20 years, Occu. Agri,

¶9

2. Mehrunissa W/o. Md. Farhat Deshmukh, Age: 47 years, Occu. H.H. All r/o Khori Galli, Latur. Ta. And Dist. Latur. = APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

1. Hazrat Dastagir Kazi, Age: 35 years, Occu. Truck Driver, R/o. Akluj, Tq. Malshiras Dist. Solapur

¶12

2. The Managing Director Sakhar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Shankar Nagar, Akluj, Tq. Malshiras.

¶13

3. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through it's Branch Manager, Main Road, Latur,

¶14

4. Jiya Ahmed Khan s/o. Gulamali Khan Age: 35 years, Occu. Business, R/o. Paithan Road, Aurangabad R/o. Silk Mills Compound.

¶15

5. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

¶16

2 FA 630/2004

¶17

Chandra Nagar, Latur

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

***

¶20

Mr. R.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Appellants;
Mr. D.H. Jadhavar & Mr. R.K. Jadhavar, Advocate
for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2

¶21

Mr. A.D. Soman Adv. h/f. Damodar Soman, Advocate
for Respondent No.3

¶22

Adv. S.Y. Mahajan for Respondent No.4.

¶23

Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent
No.5.

¶24

***

¶25

CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.

¶26

DATE :27th July,2017.

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶28

1)Heard. Present appeal is filed
challenging the judgment and award passed by the
MotorAccidentClaimsTribunal,Latur

¶29

(hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in MACP
No.214/2001 decided on 13th October, 2003.

¶30

2)The appellants had filed the aforesaid

¶31

claim petition claiming compensation on account
of death of their daughter, viz. Shamshad Begum,

¶32

alleging to have been caused in a vehicular
accident happened on 12th April, 1999 having
involvement of a tanker bearing Registrar No. MH-

¶33

3 FA 630/2004

¶34

13-G-178 and Tata Seirra bearing registration No.
MH-01-R-4847. The alleged accident had happened

¶35

when deceased Shamshad and the appellants were
travelling in a Tata Sierra on Pune - Solapur
road and was dashed by the aforesaid tanker. In
the accident so happened, Shamshad Begum died on
the spot, whereas the appellants were injured.

¶36

.It was the contention of the appellants
that the accident in question happened because of
the rash and negligent driving of driver of the
aforesaid tanker. The appellants had, therefore,
filed the claim petition against driver, owner
and insurer of the said tanker as well as owner

¶37

and insurer of the Tata Sierra claiming
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶38

3)As was stated in the claim petition,
deceased Shamshad was 24 years old and at the

¶39

time of her death she was taking education. It
was further contention of the appellants that
deceased Shamshad was on the verge of completing
her education and after completing her education

¶40

4 FA 630/2004

¶41

would have certainly got promising job and could

¶42

have become support for the appellants in their
old age.

¶43

4)The claim petition was resisted by the

¶44

respondents therein on several grounds. The

¶45

learned Tribunal, after having assessed the oral

¶46

and documentary evidence brought before it,
awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the
appellants jointly and severally from the owner

¶47

and insurer of the tanker involved in the
accident. The claim petition was dismissed as

¶48

against the owner and insurer of the Tata Sierra.
Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation so

¶49

offered, the appellants have filed the present
appeal claiming enhancement in the amount of
compensation so awarded by the Tribunal.

¶50

5)The learned Counsel appearing for the
appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred

¶51

in not awarding just and fair compensation to the
claimants. The learned Counsel submitted that

¶52

5 FA 630/2004

¶53

the Tribunal has not considered that after the
education, deceased Shamshad must have got a good
job and would have become earning hand of family
of the appellants and as such, at least holding
her income by applying the criterion of notional
income, the Tribunal must have awarded due
compensation in that regard. The learned Counsel
submitted that even the compensation, as has been
awarded by the Tribunal, towards loss of estate
is inadequate. The learned Counsel, therefore,
prayed for adequate enhancement in the amount of
compensation.

¶54

6)Learned Counsel appearing for the
insurance company opposed the submissions made on
behalf of the appellants. The learned Counsel
submitted that the Tribunal, after having
considered the entire evidence on record and
considering the issues raised in the matter, has
awarded a fair and just compensation to the tune
of Rs. 1,00,000/- and no more compensation needs

¶55

to be awarded in the present matter.

¶56

6 FA 630/2004

¶57

7)I have carefully considered the

¶58

submissions advanced by the learned Counsel

¶59

appearing for the respective parties. I have
perused the impugned judgment and award as well

¶60

as the evidence placed on record. So far as the
facts are concerned, since there is no dispute, I

¶61

need not to repeat the said facts. The point,

¶62

which requires to be considered in the present
matter is, whether any more compensation could

¶63

have been awarded by the Tribunal by holding the
income of the deceased on notional basis?

¶64

.Admittedly, at the relevant time,

¶65

deceased Shamshad was not serving, but she was

¶66

taking education. In absence of any evidence as

¶67

about the prospects of her getting any job or
service or any whisper in that regard, it does

¶68

not appear to me that the Tribunal has committed

¶69

any error in not considering the arguments in

¶70

that regard. Moreover, it appears to me that

¶71

since age of the deceased was 24 years, even
otherwise, the appellants could not have claimed

¶72

7 FA 630/2004

¶73

dependency on the prospective income of the

¶74

deceased, since that was her marriageable age.

¶75

The only compensation, which was liable to be

¶76

granted was towards loss of love and affection

¶77

and the Tribunal has rightly assessed the said

¶78

amount to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. It does not

¶79

appear to me that the amount of compensation, as

¶80

has been awarded by the Tribunal, is any way

¶81

unjust or unfair. No case is made out by the
appellants for enhancement in the amount of
compensation. The appeal being devoid of any
substances deserves to be dismissed and is
accordinglydismissed.Pendingcivil

¶82

application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶83

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE

¶84

bdv/

Mohd Farhat Abdul Rehman Deshmukh v. Hazrat Dastagir Kazi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Farhat Abdul Rehman Deshmukh v. Hazrat Dastagir Kazi and Others

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

The State of Maharashtra and Otehrs Vs Pandurang Ranu Nimse

Ratan Shravan Shinde and Others Vs the Area Manager Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Jalgaon Midc, Jalgaon and Ors.

Devaji Bandu Damodhar Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer a'Bad

MD Farhat Abdul Raheman Deshmukh and Others Vs Hazrat Dastagir Kazi and Others

Mehrunissa Mohd Farhat Deshmukh Vs Hazrat Dastagir Kazi and Others

The State of Mah. Vs Babasaheb Haribhau Bade