Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Anitabai @ Angooribai vs Balram on 4 April, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9292
1 MA-1251-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 4 th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 1251 of 2015
SMT. ANITABAI @ ANGOORIBAI AND OTHERS
Versus
BALRAM AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Govind Meena - advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Jain, learned counsel for the respondent [R-3].
Heard on : 27.03.2025
Pronounced on : 04.04.2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the claimant under section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 is arising out of the award dated 13.03.2014, passed
by Member MACT, Indore, in Claim Case No.42/2012 seeking
enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.11.2011 in the night
deceased Sumersingh was sleeping in the shed of his sand and gravel
shop situated in front of Haji Colony Dargah Khajrana, Indore at that
time the driver of the dumper bearing registration No.RJ 09-GA-1120
came driving the vehicle loaded with gravel and powder and without
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9292
2 MA-1251-2015
noticing that Sumersingh was sleeping there, without giving any signal,
he unloaded the gravel power upon Sumersingh due to which he got
buried under the gravel and powder and died on the spot.
3. As per the findings of the Tribunal, for the death of deceased,
the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,34,500/-.
4. The Tribunal while awarding the amount of compensation for
the death of deceased, has considered the entire evidence placed on
record and after recording evidence Tribunal awarded a total
compensation of Rs.5,34,500/- in the following heads:
Loss of dependency Rs.4,09,500/-
Income taken as Rs.3500-1/4 x 12 x13
Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000/-
TOTAL Rs.5,34,500/-
4 . Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has
committed an error in not awarding just and proper amount of
compensation in the case as the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on
the lower side hence, liable to be appropriately modified. The interest of
6% is also on very low as per settled law on this point. The Tribunal has
committed an error in not awarding compensation under the head of
future prospects keeping in view the verdict of the apex Court in the
case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi - 2017 ACJ 2700.
In which it is held that every dependent is entitled for consortium, hence,
the view of learned Trial Court regarding single consortium is also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9292
3 MA-1251-2015
perverse. So far as the income is concerned, the learned Tribunal has
taken notional income as Rs.3500/- per month and after deduction
calculated loss of dependency as Rs.4,09,500/- which is also incorrect.
Hence, prayed for awarding just and proper amount of compensation in
the case.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has contended that since the vehicle was plying without
registration and fitness certificate, therefore, insurance company has
been exonerated and it was held that if the owner of the vehicle would
pay the surety and bond to insurance company, then the insurance
company would pay compensation to the claimants and will recover the
same from the owner/driver.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going
through the record and also the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the cases of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others (2041), Kirti and Another v.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166, and Pranay
Sethi (Supra) I find substance in the arguments advanced by the counsel
for the appellants.
8. Certainly, in this case, the claimants have not been produced
any evidence regarding income. However, it is well settled that the
income of claimant can be awarded on the basis of minimum wages
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9292
4 MA-1251-2015
prescribed by the State. In this regard, paragraph No.11 of the judgment
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kirti and Another (Supra) ,
is condign to quote here:-
II. Assessment of monthly income
"11. Second, although it is correct that the claimants
have been unable to produce any document evidencing
Vinod's income, nor have they established his employment as
a teacher; but that doesn't justify adoption of the lowest tier
of minimum wage while computing his income. From the
statement of witnesses, documentary evidence on record and
circumstances of the accident, it is apparent that Vinod was
comparatively more educationally qualified and skilled.
Further, he maintained a reasonable standard of living for his
family as evidenced by his use of a 7 motorcycle for
commuting. Preserving the existing standard of living of a
deceased's family is a fundamental endeavour of motor
accident compensation law.Thus, at the very least, the
minimum wage of Rs 6197 as applicable to skilled workers
during April 2014 in the State of Haryana ought to be applied
in his case."
9. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court,
the matter has been considered. As per the minimum wages prescribed
by the National Income Chart and the evidence available on record, it
would be appropriate to enhance the notional income from Rs.3,500/- to
Rs.4,545/- per month. Since, the age of deceased is, undisputedly, 45
years at the time of incident, in view of Pranay Sethi (Supra) 25% future
prospect should be added in his income. As such, the yearly income of
deceased after deduction of loss of dependency @ 1/4 would be
considered as Rs.54540/- (Rs.4545/- x12) (25% F.P.)-1/4 X 12 X13 =
Rs.6,64,706/- per year.
10. That apart, the order of learned trial Court with regard to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9292
5 MA-1251-2015
head of consortium amount, is also perverse in light of the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company
Limited (Supra). Hence, it will be appropriate to apply multiplier of four
as there are four dependents of the deceased i.e. Rs.40,000/-x 4=
2,00,000/- under the head of Consortium. Loss of estate and funeral
expenses are taken as Rs.15,000/- under each head.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be modified as under:
HEAD AMOUNT
Income taken Rs.4545+(25% F.P.) =
Rs. 5681.25 per month x 12 =
Rs. 68175/- (per year)
Personal Expenses -1/4 = Rs.17043.75/- per year
Loss of dependency 3/4 -Rs.51131.25/- per year
Multiplier 13 - Rs.51131.25 x 13 = 6,64,706/-
Loss of consortium -Rs.40,000 x 5 = 2,00,000/-
Loss of estate -Rs.15,000/-
Funeral expenses -Rs.15,000/-
------------------
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9292
6 MA-1251-2015
TOTAL Rs.8,94,706/-
12. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant
case is Rs.8,94,706/- as against the award of the Tribunal of
Rs.5,34,500/-. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to an additional
sum of Rs.3,60,206/- over and above the amount which has been
awarded by the Tribunal.
13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount by a sum of Rs.3,60,206/-. Considering the
defence of the insurance company, it would be that at first the
compensation be paid subject to furnishing the security by the
owner/driver and then the same shall be recovered. The other findings
recorded by the Tribunal shall remain intact.
PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
sumathi
