5-FA-1121-2016 @.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1121 OF 2016 Smt. Munira Mohiddin Fakir And Anr. … Appellants Versus Shriram General Insurances Co. Ltd. And Ors. … Respondents *** Mr. Bhushan Walimbe a/w Mr. Vaibhav V. Arage for the Appellants. Mr. Avesh Ghadge a/w Mr. Rajdeep Shitole i/by Mr. Shalini Shankar for the Respondent No. 1-Insurance Company. *** CORAM : M. M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 18th March, 2026. P. C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned Judgment. Admit. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1-Insurance Company waives service. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The appeal is filed by the original claimants challenging the Judgment and Award dated 19.10.2015 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 88 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Islampur, whereby the Respondents (Insurance Company, owner and driver of the offending vehicle) were held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 4,30,000/-, including the amount under “no-fault liability.” The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% from the date of the claim application till realization. 3. Few facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under: Shubham 1 5-FA-1121-2016 @.doc 3.1 On 02.04.2012, the date of the accident, deceased Riyaz Mohiddin Fakir was traveling with his friend in a Maruti car when the offending truck (MH-10-Z-4070), driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the Maruti car. The deceased sustained injuries which resulted in his death. A police case was registered against the driver of the offending truck. The offending truck was insured with Respondent No. 1 – Insurance Company. 3.2 The claim for compensation was made under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act,1988 by parents of the deceased, contending inter alia that the deceased was 28 years old and was working with a builder earning Rs. 15,000/- p.m. Compensation of Rs. 12,49,983/- was claimed with interest. 3.3 The owner and driver filed written statement contending inter alia that the Maruti Car dashed on the offending truck which was standing near a stream and the truck as well as truck driver has been falsely implicated in the case. 3.4 Respondent No. 1-Insurance Company filed written statement contending inter alia that offending truck was not insured and Maruti Car was being driven in rash and negligent manner contributing to the accident. The age and income of the deceased was denied. 3.5 Learned Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month and after applying a deduction of 50% and multiplier of 13, arrived at the compensation amount. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellants/claimants submitted that the income of the deceased ought to have been considered at Rs. 9,000/- per month, being the average minimum wages applicable for skilled and unskilled person in Zone-2 which covers Satara region where the deceased was working. He further submitted that future prospects were not considered at all and the multiplier should have been applied based on the age of the deceased and not age of the dependents. Shubham 2 5-FA-1121-2016 @.doc 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 – Insurance Company relied upon the judgment in Shaikh Sadik Shaikh Rafique vs. Reliance General Insu. Co. Ltd. and Others [2025 ACJ 1290] to contend that the formula adopted therein should be applied and at most, an increase of Rs. 500/- per year from 2004 can be considered. He fairly submitted that the multiplier may be applied based on the age of the deceased. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. It is an admitted position that there is no documentary evidence on record adduced by the Claimants about the income of the deceased. The deceased was 28 years old and according to the oral evidence of Claimant No. 2 he was working with builder and earning Rs. 15,000/-. 8. In Shaikh Sadik Shaikh Rafique (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Ins.Co [2011 ACJ 2436 (SC)] in which Rs. 4,500/- was considered as appropriate income of ‘a coolie’ in the year 2004, has held that at least Rs. 500/- p.m. for successive years can be applied. Applying the said formula from 2004 till 2012 (when the present accident has taken place) Rs. 4,000/- (Rs. 500 x 8) can be added safely. If the said amount is added to the amount of Rs. 5000/- already granted by the Tribunal, the amount ultimately comes to Rs. 9,000/- p.m. In that view of the matter, the income of the deceased can be safely increased from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 9,000/- p.m. 9. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, since there is no proof about the service or business, 40% future prospect can be safely applied and other heads such as loss of consortium etc. can be applied. 10. Considering the Judgment of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Mandala Yadagari Goud & Ors. (2019) 5 SCC 554 relied upon by the Appellant/Claimants which takes stock of the earlier Judgments of Sube Shubham 3 5-FA-1121-2016 @.doc Singh Vs. Sham Singh (2018) 3 SCC 18, Munna Lal Jain Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma, (2015) 6 SCC 347, Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65, and Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, the age of the deceased will have to be taken as a basis for applying multiplier of 17. 11. Considering that the impugned Award is of the year 2015 the interest granted @ 6% is found to be on lower side. It is accordingly increased to 7.5%. 12. Accordingly the Appellants are held entitled to receive and recover from Respondents jointly and severely an amount of Rs. 14,17,200/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim application till realization. It is as per the calculations given below. Monthly Income = Rs. 9,000/- Annual Income = Rs. 1,08,000/- Multiplier 17 = Rs. 18,36,000/- Add: 40% future prospects = Rs. 18,36,000 + 40% = Rs. 25,70,400/- Less ½ deduction for personal expenses = Rs. 12,85,200 Total income = Rs. 12,85,200/- Funeral Expenses = Rs.18,000/- Loss of Estate = Rs. 18,000/- Consortium for parents Rs. 48,000 x 2 = Rs. 96,000/- Total compensation = Rs. 14,17,200/- Less awarded by Tribunal = Rs. 4,30,000/- Enhanced amount = Rs. 9,87,200/- 13. First Appeal is partly allowed and disposed of in the above terms. 14. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order. [ M. M. SATHAYE, J. ] Shubham 4 TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Digitally signed by TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date: 2026.03.18 18:20:20 +0530