Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nanuram vs Ajay on 29 April, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11231
1 MA-849-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 849 of 2018
NANURAM AND OTHERS
Versus
AJAY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Avinash Yadav - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Sudhir Dandwate - Advocate for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.
02. This appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has
been preferred by the appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the award dated
26.10.2017 passed in MACC No.54/2017 by the IInd Additional Member, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Badwani whereby a total sum of Rs.2,92,000/- has
been awarded to them by way of compensation.
03. As per the appellants, on 31.03.2015 at about 5:15 pm, deceased Sagar,
son of appellants No.1 and 2 and brother of appellant No.3 was going from
Dawana to Badwani. When he reached the Dawana Petrol Pump, respondent No.1
drove pickup vehicle bearing registration No.MP-09-GG-2276 which was owned
by respondent No.2 and was insured with respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed the same against his motorcycle as a result of which he fell
down and suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to the hospital for treatment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11231
2 MA-849-2018
but was pronounced dead.
04. Thereafter, the appellants filed an application under Section 166, 140 of
the Act, 1988 before the Claims Tribunal for award of a total sum of
Rs.20,00,000/- to them by way of compensation. The application was contested
by respondents by filing their written statement to the same. Upon evaluation of
the evidence brought on record by the parties the Claims Tribunal has awarded
compensation to the appellants as aforesaid.
05. This appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation has been
preferred by the appellants on the ground that the income of the deceased which
has been taken at Rs.3,000/- per month is extremely low. The deceased was
working as a labourer and was earning Rs.200/- per day hence his income ought
to have been assessed accordingly. It is further submitted that the future prospects
of rise in income of the deceased have not been taken into consideration. The
deceased was aged 19 years at the time of his death hence the multiplier
applicable was 16 whereas the claims tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 14. It
is also submitted that no amount towards filial consortium has been awarded to
appellants No.1 and 2. It is hence submitted that the amount awarded to the
appellants be enhanced appropriately.
06. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3, Insurance Company
has submitted that just and fair amount of compensation has been awarded to the
appellants in which no interference is warranted in view of which the appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
07. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and have perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11231
3 MA-849-2018
08. In the evidence before the tribunal, the appellants had categorically
stated that the deceased was working as a labourer and was earning Rs.200/- per
day. There was no reason to disbelieve their statements. In any case, in absence of
any proof his income ought to have been taken on the basis of minimum wages as
applicable on the date of accident which was of the year 2015. Considering the
same, his income deserves to be taken at Rs.5,895/- per month. The tribunal has
not taken into consideration the future prospects of rise in income of the deceased
which as per the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (16) SCC 680 deserve to be taken at 40%. In view
of age of the deceased, the multiplier applicable was 16 and not 14 as has been
applied by the claims tribunal. Appellants No.1 and 2 are the parents of the
deceased hence are entitled for award of filial consortium to them in the sum of
Rs.40,000/- each in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram, 2019 ACJ SC 2782.
09. The amount which the appellants are entitled for on account of loss of
dependency would be Rs.5895/- per month + Rs.2358/- i.e. 40% for future
prospects of rise in income which would be Rs.8253/- i.e. Rs.99,036/- per annum.
Applying the multiplier of 16 and deducting half the total amount come to
Rs.7,87,200/-. For loss of appellants No.1 and 2 are entitled for a sum of
Rs.80,000/-. For funeral expenses they deserve to be awarded total sum of
Rs.15,000/- and same amount for loss of estate.
10. The appellants are entitled for award of total sum of Rs.8,97,200/- to
them by way of compensation whereas the claims tribunal has awarded them a
sum of Rs.2,92,000/- only which is evident from the calculation as made in the
impugned award from paragraph No.26 to 32 whereas inadvertently the same has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11231
4 MA-849-2018
been mentioned as Rs.4,00,420/- in paragraph No.33. The appellants are hence
held entitled for enhancement in the amount of compensation in the sum of
Rs.6,05,200/- which shall be payable to them from the date of filing of the claim
application till date of payment.
11. The appellants have valued this appeal at Rs.2,00,000/- only
whereas enhancement in the amount of compensation is in the sum of
Rs.6,05,200/-. The appellants would hence be required to pay the appropriate
Court fees on the additional enhanced amount of Rs.4,05,200/- which shall
be paid by them within a period of two months from today. In case of their
failure to pay the Court fees as aforesaid, this additional enhanced amount of
Rs.4,05,200/- shall cease to carry any interest after a period of two months.
12. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
