HMK 15. FA-2305-2005.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 2305 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1349 OF 2018 Karam Hussain Shaikh & Ors. ….Appellants/Applicants Versus Jain Dalchand Tejpal & Anr. .…Respondents __________________________________________________________________ Ms. Ketki Gokhale i/by Mr. Avinash M. Gokhale for the Appellants/ Applicants. Ms. Urmila K. Samil for the Respondents. __________________________________________________________________ CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J. DATED : 07th JULY 2026 P. C. : 1. This appeal was admitted on 25th April, 2006. 2. This appeal is filed by the original claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs. 1,44,000/- awarded vide order dated 05th May, 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai (Tribunal). 3. I have heard learned counsel for the claimants and the Insurance Company. 4. Admittedly, on the day when the Trial Court had decided this matter, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.1 was not available. Therefore, various heads of compensation and the mode of computation as per the 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 1 of 3 SAYYED SAEED ALI AHMED ALI Digitally signed by SAYYED SAEED ALI AHMED ALI Date: 2026.07.07 17:29:12 +0530 HMK 15. FA-2305-2005.doc decision of the Pranay Sethi (Supra) could not have been considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, to that extent, the order of the Tribunal requires modification. 5. The claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/-. The Tribunal has considered Rs.2,500/- per month as notional income for computing the compensation. The deceased was working in garage as a mechanic. In the evidence led by the claimants, it has come on record that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, in my view, the notional income of the deceased should be considered as Rs.3,000/- per month for the purpose of calculating the compensation. Even otherwise, looking at the nature of work Rs.3,000/- per month cannot be considered unreasonable. 6. The second submission is that the Tribunal has considered deduction towards personal expenses as 1/2, whereas it is the submission of the claimants that deduction should be considered 1/3. The family of the deceased consist of father, mother and three siblings, two of which were minors. Therefore, it cannot be said that only mother was dependent. There were siblings, who were minor, who can be considered as dependent on the income of the deceased. Therefore, deduction towards personal expenses should be 1/3 and not 1/2. 7. The revised compensation after adopting the above reasoning and applying the decision of Pranay Sethi (Supra) is as under :- Particulars Amount 1. Annual income (Rs.3,000/- x 12) Rs. 36,000/- Add : 40% future prospects Rs. 14,400/- Rs. 50,400/- 2 of 3 HMK 15. FA-2305-2005.doc Deduction of 1/3 Rs. 16,632/- Rs. 33,770/- After applying multiplier of 18 (Age 19) Rs. 6,41,630/- 2. Loss of income (2 Claimants) Rs. 96,000/- 3. Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/- 4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 7,73,630/- (Less) Awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1,44,000/- Enhanced Compensation Rs. 6,29,630/- 8. The enhanced compensation is Rs.6,29,630/- (Rs.7,73,630/- (-) Rs.1,44,000/-). The original claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation and the original compensation alongwith interest. 9. The Insurance Company to deposit the original amount and the enhanced amount alongwith interest with the Tribunal within eight weeks from today and the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same. 10. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. 11. Consequently, Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. [ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ] 3 of 3