Allowed

Tarik Yasin Ansari and Othrs v. Prashant Kanakmal Raka and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Feb 2024FA/90/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the judgment and order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune, enhancing the compensation awarded to the claimants. The Court recalculated the income of the deceased, adjusted the multiplier, and awarded future prospects and consortium amounts as per Supreme Court guidelines. The insurance company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with inter

What did the court decide?

Allowed the appeal, upheld enhanced compensation of Rs. 7,38,512 with interest at 7.5% per annum. Directed Respondent to deposit the amount within six weeks.

Tarik Yasin Ansari and Othrs Vs Prashant Kanakmal Raka… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

223-FA-90-2010-JUDGMENT.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO. 90 OF 2010

¶4

		1. Tarik Yasin Ansari Age-62 years, Occ : Nil	} } }
		2. Jainuddin Tarik Ansari Age-17 years, Occ : Education Since Minor Through His Natural Guardian father Tarik Yasin Ansari	} } } } }
NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE	Digitally signed by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2024.03.14 18:29:07 +0530	3. Abbas Tarik Amsari Age-20 years, Occ ; Nil Appellant Nos.1 to 3 R/at Baikunthpur Kothi, Dudhari, Taluka-Tamkuhiraj, District- Kashingar, State-U.P.	} } } } } }	(Org. Applicants)
		4. Alihusen Tarik Ansari Age-29, Occ : Service	} } }
		5. Jamaluddin ‘Tarik Ansari’ Age-37 years, occ : Service, Appellant Nos.4 and 5 R/at Eastern Bekari, Javahar Ganj, Mithanagar, S.No.52, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune-411 048.	} } } } }	….Appellants
		Versus
		1. Shri.Prashant Kanakmal Raka Age-Adult, Occ : Business	} } }
		2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.	}	(Org. Opponents)
		Office at D.O. 6, Laxmi Road, Pune.	}	….Respondents

¶5

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 5

¶6

223-FA-90-2010-JUDGMENT.doc

¶7

…. Mr.Yogesh G. Thorat a/w Mr.Ashok B. Tajane, Mr.H.M. Khupsare, for the Appellants.

¶8

Ms.Poonam Mital, for Respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶10

DATE : 26^th FEBRUARY 2024.

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶12

. By way of this Appeal the Claimant’s are seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶13

It is contention of the learned counsel for the AppellantsClaimants that, the deceased was earning Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day.

¶14

But Tribunal has considered income of deceased at Rs.36,000/- per

¶15

annum, which is on lower side. The learned counsel further submitted that, the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 9, which is wrong. The learned counsel further submitted that, the Tribunal has not awarded future prospects, it be awarded. The Consortium amount is awarded on lower side, it be awarded. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

¶16

It is contention of the learned counsel for the RespondentInsurance Company that, while passing the judgment and order the Tribunal has considered all the aspects on that basis compensation is

¶17

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 5

¶18

223-FA-90-2010-JUDGMENT.doc

¶19

awarded. No interference is required in it.

¶20

I have heard both learned counsel. Perused judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘The Tribunal’ for short), Pune.

¶21

To prove the income of the deceased the Claimant’s have examined Claimant No.5. He has stated that, the deceased was working in Sonal Bakery and was earning Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has considered yearly income of deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. In my view, it should be Rs.40,000/- per anuum. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 21 years old. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 9, it should be 18. The Tribunal has not awarded future prospects. As per view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Pranay Sethi¹ , the Claimant’s are entitled for future prospects.

¶22

The Tribunal has awarded consortium amount on lower side. As per view of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Nanu Ram² , each claimant is entitled for Rs.40,000/- as consortium amount. Rs.16,500/- for funeral expenses

¶23

1 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)

¶24

2 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC)

¶25

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 5

¶26

223-FA-90-2010-JUDGMENT.doc

¶27

and Rs.16,500/- for loss of estate. Considering this calculation the

¶28

Claimants are entitled for following compensation.

¶29

Particulars	Amount
Yearly Income-Notional	Rs.40,000.00
40% Future Prospects	(+) Rs.16,000.00
Total Income	Rs.56,000.00
1/3rd Deducting for living Expenses	Rs.37,334.00
Rs.56,000 – Rs.18,666
Multiplier (18)	Rs.6,72,012.00
Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000 X 5	Rs.2,00,000.00
Funeral Expenses	Rs.16,500.00
Loss of Estate	Rs.16,500.00
Total Compensation (Rs.6,72,012 + Rs.2,33,000)	Rs.9,05,012.00
Awarded Compensation	Rs.1,66,500.00
Enhanced Compensation	Rs.7,38,512.00

¶30

In view of above, I pass following order.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(i) The Appeal is allowed. (ii) The Claimant’s are entitled for enhanced amount Rs.7,38,512 @ 7.5% per annum from date of the filing of

¶33

the Claim Petition till realization of the amount. Out of

¶34

this amount Rs.2,30,000/- is consortium amount, the

¶35

N.S. Kamble page 4 of 5

¶36

223-FA-90-2010-JUDGMENT.doc

¶37

Claimant’s are entitled @ 7.5% interest on it from 1^st November 2017, till realization of the amount.

¶38

(iii) The Respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount along with accrued interest thereon within six weeks after receipt of this order.

¶39

(iv) The Claimant’s are permitted to withdraw the deposited amount alongwith interest.

¶40

(v) All pending Civil/Interim Applications are disposed of.

¶41

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶42

N.S. Kamble page 5 of 5

Tarik Yasin Ansari and Othrs v. Prashant Kanakmal Raka and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarik Yasin Ansari and Othrs v. Prashant Kanakmal Raka and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Heramb Rajendra Sonawane vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Thane Vs Mr. Akshay Anil Shinde and Ors.

Mrs. Ruchika(Daksha) Satish Patil Vs Satish Prakash Patil

United India Insurance Company Limited, Pune Vs Smt. Basavva Khajappa Naykode and Ors.

Mr. Prashant Ashok Jadhav Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.

Sonali Nikhil Kulkarni Vs Nikhil Keshav Kulkarni