Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anguribai vs Arjun on 8 April, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9611
1 MA-4744-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 8 th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 4744 of 2024
ANGURIBAI AND OTHERS
Versus
ARJUN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Jain - advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anil Kumar Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent [R-3].
Heard on : 27.03.2025
Pronounced on : 08.04.2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the claimant under section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 is arising out of the award dated 26.11.2020, passed by
1st Addl. Member MACT, Indore, in Claim Case No.206/2021 seeking
enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.06.2021 the deceased was
going in his motor cycle from Dasai to Mangodh at that time respondent no.1
was driving the offending vehicle No.MP-11-NB-6001 from opposite
direction rashly and negligently and dashed with the deceased's vehicle due
to which he sustained injuries and died during treatment.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9611
2 MA-4744-2024
3. As per the findings of the Tribunal, for the death of deceased, the
Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.16,26,600/-.
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.16,26,600/- in the following heads:
Loss of dependency Rs.14,61,600-
Income taken as Rs.7,250 x 12 =87,000/- +40%
=121800 x 3/4 x 16)
Loss of consortium Rs.1,32,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/-
TOTAL Rs.16,26,600/-
Rounded off figure Rs.16,27,000/-
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 7% 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 perverse. So far as the income is concerned, the
learned Tribunal has taken notional income as Rs.7250/- per month and after
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9611
3 MA-4744-2024
deduction calculated loss of dependency as Rs.14,61,600/- which is also
incorrect. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the income part
of the deceased which is not calculated as per minimum wages Act. 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 argued in support of the impugned award and contended that the claims
tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation amount in the case which does
not call for any interference by this Court. Although counsel has formally
objected, however, not challenged the substantial parental consortium.
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 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:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9611
4 MA-4744-2024
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.7,250/- to Rs.8700/- per
month. Since, the age of deceased is, undisputedly, 35 years at the time of
incident, in view of Pranay Sethi (Supra) 40% 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.1,04,400/-
(Rs.8700/- x12) (40% F.P.)-1/4 X 12 X16 = Rs.17,53,920/- per year.
10. That apart, the order of learned trial Court with regard to the 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 (Supra) .
Hence, it will be appropriate to apply multiplier of four as there are four
dependents of the deceased i.e. Rs.44,000/-x 5= 2,20,000/- under the head of
Consortium. Loss of estate and funeral expenses are taken as Rs.16,500/-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9611
5 MA-4744-2024
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.8700+(40% F.P.) =
Rs.12,180 per month x 12 =
Rs.1,46,160/- (per year)
Personal Expenses -1/4 = Rs.36540/- per year
Loss of dependency 3/4 -Rs.1,09,620/- per year
Multiplier 16 - Rs.1,09,620 x 16 = 17,53,920/-
Loss of consortium -Rs.44,000 x 5 = 2,20,000/-
Loss of estate -Rs.16,500/-
Funeral expenses -Rs.16,500/-
-------------------
TOTAL Rs.20,06,920/-
12. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant case
is Rs.20,06,920/- as against the award of the Tribunal of Rs.16,26,600/-.
Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to an additional sum of Rs.3,79,920/-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9611
6 MA-4744-2024
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.3,79,920/-. 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.
14. The enhanced amount shall carry interest as fixed by the learned
Claims Tribunal from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The
said amount be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. Rest of conditions as imposed by learned Claims
Tribunal shall remain intact.
15. If the enhanced amount of compensation is in excess to the valuation of
appeal, the difference of the Court fee (if not already paid) shall be deposited by
the appellants- claimants within a period of one month and proof thereof, shall be
submitted before the Registry. Thereafter, the Registry shall issue the certified
copy of the order passed today.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
sumathi
