1 FA 386.21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.386 OF 2021 1) Nasreen Jaha wd/o Said Khan, Aged about 39 years, Occupation-Household. 2) Shohebkhan s/o Said Khan, Aged about 20 years, Occupation-Education. 3) Anam Muskan d/o Said Khan, Aged about 20 years, Occupation-Education. 4) Arashad Khan s/o Said Khan, Aged about 17 years, Occupation-Education. (No.4 is minor through their natural Guardian mother Appellant No.1.) 5) Sayarabano wd/o Kadirkhan (Dead) Aged about 69 years, Occupation-Household. All R/o. At Post Taj Nagar, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. .. Appellants .. Versus .. 1) Ajay s/o Rambhau Men, Aged about 52 years, Occupation-Driver, R/o. 20, Matoshri Nityanand Nagar, Gorakshan Road, Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola. 2026:BHC-NAG:13264 2 FA 386.21 2) IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited. (Notice to be served on, The Divisional Manager, Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Gulshan Plaza, Rajapeth, Badnera Road, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. .. Respondents ………. Ms. Aastha R. Sharma, Advocate h/f Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for Appellants. None for Respondent No.1 though served. Ms. Gargi Bhai, Advocate h/f Ms. Ashwini S. Athalye, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ………. CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATED : 01.10.2026. JUDGMENT 1. In the present appeal the challenge is to the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.317/2018, whereby the learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, by considering the notional income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month, awarded the compensation at Rs.10,27,000/- along with the interest. 3 FA 386.21 2. The present appeal is filed only on the issue of quantum. The other aspects are not disputed in the present matter. So also the respondent no.2-insurance company has not filed separate appeal to challenge the impugned judgment and order before this court. Therefore, only issue which is to be dealt with and decide in the present matter is about the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the present appellants that the deceased Saidkhan Kadirkhan was doing multiple business. He was Proprietor of Taj Mandap Decoration and Sound System, Business of Transport of Goods and Driver and Proprietor of Salim General Stores at Kurum, District-Akola. Therefore, it is their submission that his yearly income of Rs.5,00,000/- per year and on the basis of this evidence, they have filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. 4. It is also pointed out that at the time of accident the deceased was 45 years old, leaving behind the present appellants, as legal heirs and, therefore, considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 4 FA 386.21 Sarla Verma (Smt) and others .vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd .vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, they are entitled for just and fair compensation by applying proper multiplier and under pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, So also under various conventional heads as determined by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Before the learned Tribunal, the owner as well as the insurance company filed their reply. They have denied the claim made by the appellants on various grounds. They also denied that the deceased was doing the business as stated by the claimant before the Tribunal. Learned Tribunal considering the submissions of both the parties has proceeded to decide the claim petition. 6. It is pertinent to note that before the Claim Tribunal only the present appellants entered into the witness box. The owner as well as insurance company did not enter into the witness box nor led any independent evidence in support of their submission. 5 FA 386.21 7. It is submitted that the deceased was having various business and same were not controverted in the present matter by respondent by bringing any contrary evidence on record. Therefore, his notional income was required to be considered on the basis of the business which he was running and which was stated in the affidavit by the claimants. To substantiate the income of the deceased, the claimants have also produced the copies of bank statement of the deceased from 31.12.2014 to 31.12.2016 whereby closing balance of two years was Rs.2,13,090/-. Hence, from this document, according to them, deceased was hard-working person and on his own established his business and was earning profit from said business. However, the learned Tribunal while deciding issue of notional income did not consider all these material facts. Tribunal merely by holding that business of deceased being continued there is only supervisory loss, determined the notional income of deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, seeks indulgence in quantum of notional income of deceased. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2, however, strongly opposed the present appeal and supported the findings 6 FA 386.21 recorded by the learned Tribunal. It is the submission of the present respondent that considering the Minimum Wages Act, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the notional income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month and, therefore, no need of any interference of this court is required in respect of the amount towards the notional income which was quantified by Tribunal in the present matter. In respect of conventional head i.e. consortium, the learned counsel for the respondent has confronted that the same would have been granted in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 9. It would be relevant to note that as per settled principles of law, if claimants were unable to produce any documentary evidence that does not justified adoption of lowest tier of minimum wages act while computing his income. From the evidence on record his reasonable standard of living for his family and other aspect also required to be taken into consideration. 10. In the present case, appellant states that deceased being active person was running various business. Running three 7 FA 386.21 business by single person itself shows, deceased was hard working person and by his hard work, he could established his business. This fact needs consideration in the matter. 11. Learned Tribunal has further not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) while awarding the benefit under the conventional head particularly towards loss of consortium. Hence, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in the present matter while deciding the claim application. 12. In the light of the submission made by both the parties before this court and after the perusal of the record and the documents which are made available, it is crystal clear that the deceased, at the time of his death, was running the various business i.e. Taj Mandap Decoration and Sound System, business of Transport of Goods and Driver and Salim General Stores at Kuaum, Dist. Akola. Considering these business, which he was running, in my considered opinion, his notional income ought to have been considered at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month and further he is entitled for the conventional head i.e. 8 FA 386.21 consortium as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 13. Learned Tribunal, while considering the quantum of compensation, has not appreciated the factual as well as legal position in right perspective and, therefore, interference of this court is necessary in the matter. In the light of above observations, in my considered opinion, the appellants- claimants are entitled for the compensation by treating the notional income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month and accordingly the said compensation comes as under. The details which are calculated for the compensation are as under : Notional Income of the deceased Rs.10,000/- Annual income of the deceased (Rs.10,000/- x 12) Rs.1,20,000/- (-) 1/4th deduction as per the judgment of Sarla Verma v/s Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121. (-) Rs.30,000/- (+) 25% Future prospects as per the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited .vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. (+) Rs.36,000/- Salary for multiplier Rs.1,26,000/- 9 FA 386.21 (x) “14” multiplier as per the Judgment of Sarla Verma v/s Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 applicable for the age group of 20 to 25. (Rs.1,26,000/- x 14). Rs.17,64,000/- (loss of dependency) Loss of Consortium : (+) Rs.44,000/- for each claimant as per Judgment in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited v/s Nanuram (2018) 18 SCC 130 followed in AIR 2020 (SC) 3076 United India Assurance Company vs Satinder Kaur. (10% increase as per Pranay Sethi’s Judgment) (Rs.44,000/- x 5) (2023 AIR (SC) 44) (+) Rs.2,20,000/- Loss of Estate (+) Rs.16,500/- Funeral Expenses (+) Rs.16,500/- Total compensation payable to claimants (Rs.17,64,000/- + Rs.2,20,000/- + Rs.16,500/- + Rs.16,500/-. Rs.20,17,000/- 14. In the light of above observations, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal is modified as under. Accordingly, the following order is passed : O R D E R (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The present appellants are held entitled for the compensation of Rs.20,17,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition before the Tribunal, till its full realization. (iii) Needless to mention that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal of Rs.10,27,000/- shall be deducted from Rs.20,17,000/- and accordingly the appellants would be 10 FA 386.21 entitled to Rs.9,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. (iv) The rest of the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal is confirmed. (v) The respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.9,90,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum within a period of eight weeks either before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal or before this Court. (vi) After depositing of amount by the respondent- insurance company, the appellants would be entitled for withdrawal of the same along with interest accrued thereon. (vii) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (Pravin S. Patil, J.) Gulande Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 06/10/2026 15:25:11