IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1027 OF 2022 The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Shop No.04, Plot No. 33, Rokadhanuman Colony, Opp. LMS. Jewellers, near Cosmos Bank, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. ...APPELLANT ( Orig. Respondent No.02)

VERSUS

01. Khajabi W/o Ishaq Sayyed, Age : 56 Years, Occ. Household, 02. Fara D/o Ishaq Sayyed, Age : 29 Years, Occ. Household 03. Nasima D/o Ishaq Sayyed, Age : 39 Years, Occ. Household, 04. Sultana D/o Ishaq Sayyed ( W/o Sk. Hasan)

Age : 39 Years, Occ. Household 05. Hasan S/o Ishaq Sayyed, Age : 42 Years, Occ. Auto Driver, 06. Rahman S/o Ishaq Sayyed, Age : 38 Years, Occ. Labourer, 07. Rahim S/o Ishaq Sayyed, Age : 38 Years, Occu. Labourer, R. Nos. 01 to 03 & 05 to 07 R/o. Kabadi Galli, Khadapura, Jalna R. No.04 R/o. Ramnastpura, Aurangabad.

08. Karbhari S/o Shivraj Akolkar, Age : 47 Years, Occ. Driver and Owner, R/o. At post Karanji, Tq.Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar.

09. Sayyad Asad S/o Sattar Age : 59 Years, Occu. Business, R/o. Mahavir Chowk, Jalna

10. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd Branch OfÏce, Jalna ( Respdt. Nos. 1 to 7- Org. Claimants Respdt. Nos. 08 TO 10- Orig. Respd. No.01,03 & 04)

…..

Advocate for the appellant : Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar …..

CORAM : S. G. DIGE, J.

DATE : 10.08.2022 JUDGMENT :-

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfed by the Judgment and award passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jalna, the appellant ( original respondent No.2) i.e.

Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under :-

On 5^th May, 2016 deceased Sayyed Imran was proceeding on Jalna to Ambad road on motor-cycle bearing registration No. MH-21-AA-2887 as a pillion rider. It is alleged that at about 5.00 p.m. the motor cycle was dashed by the truck bearing registration No. MH-17-AG-8406, on account of said accident, deceased had sufered fatal injuries. Crime was registered against truck driver for rash and negligent driving and under other sections of Indian Penal Code.

3. The respondents/ original claimants had fled claim petition before Member Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jalna( for short’’ The Tribunal’’) for getting compensation. Considering the evidence on record and after hearing the parties the Tribunal has awarded compensation said Judgment and order is under challenge.

4. It is contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was bachelor, so there should be 1/2 deduction towards personal expenses but the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd deduction. Learned counsel further submits that future prospects of the deceased is considered by the learned Tribunal 50%, but it should be 40%, hence requested to allow the appeal.

5. It is contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that considering evidence led before Tribunal, the Tribunal has awarded compensation by considering all the factors.

6. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. The issue involved in the present appeal is the amount considered by the Tribunal in respect of future prospects and deduction of the amount for personal expenses.

(i) Future prospects The tribunal has considered notional income of deceased Rs. 6000/- per month i.e. Rs. 72,000/- per annum. On this amount the tribunal has considered 50% amount in addition as future prospects. The tribunal has relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co Versus Pranay Sethi and others dated 31.10.2017. In my my view, the Tribunal has not proper gone through this judgment and done wrong calculations about future prospect. In the above judgment Hon’ble Apex court has held that if deceased is in permanent service then 50% additional future prospects be added. In present case, deceased was not in permanent service hence his notional income deceased was below 40 years of age. As per view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co Versus Pranay Sethi and others d