Madhya Pradesh High Court

Amar Singh vs Upendra Gaud on 1 July, 2025

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13220




                                                            1                                 MA-939-2017
                            IN      THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT GWALIOR
                                                       BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
                                                   ON THE 1 st OF JULY, 2025
                                                 MISC. APPEAL No. 939 of 2017
                                                      AMAR SINGH
                                                         Versus
                                                UPENDRA GAUD AND OTHERS
                         Appearance:
                               Shri Ramesh Prasad Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.
                               Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal - Advocate for respondent No.3/insurance
                         company.

                                                           JUDGMENT

This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by IIIrd Additional, MACT, Morena, vide award dated 12.05.2017 in Claim Case No.202/2014 whereby MACT has awarded compensation amount of Rs.8,54,603/- alongwith interest @6% per annum to the claimant for the injuries suffered in a road accident.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of this appeal are that on 18.11.2013 at about 8:30 p.m., appellant was coming from Kailaras to his village by loading

vehicle (chhota hathi) with his brother Munesh and Asharam, they reached near in front tolaka railway fatak, M.S. Road, at that time one Tata Eicher bearing registration no.M.P.06-E-6301, which was driving by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the loading vehicle (chhota hathi). As a result, the appellant, Amar Singh, sustained grievous injuries to his backbone and other parts of his body.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the permanent disability

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13220

2 MA-939-2017 assumed by learned Tribunal as 80% while the doctor Shri Subhash Agarwal (AW-4) has categorically stated that the permanent disability was 100%. Keeping in view the statement of doctor Shri Subhash Agarwal (AW-4), permanent disability ought to be assumed as 100%, the learned Tribunal has considered income of the injured as Rs.4000/- per month while on date of accident the minimum income for unskilled labour was Rs.5520/- per month, therefore, such income should be considered for ascertaining the compensation amount. Learned Tribunal has not granted compensation amount towards future prospects including payments of medical bills. On these grounds, he prays for enhancement of the compensation amount.

4. Per contra , learned counsel for the insurance company/respondent No.3 has vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that learned Tribunal has found

80% of permanent disability on the basis of evidence on record and such finding did not call any interference. Learned Tribunal on other heads has given ample amount to the claimant. Hence, there is no grounds for enhancement of compensation amount. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Prashant Sagar Vs. Mukesh and others passed on 07.08.2009 in M.A.No.50/2009 . It is also submitted that doctor Subhash Agarwal (AW-4) has stated in his statement that the injured has quardiparesis which shows that there is partial disability and he had no quadriplegia (both hands and legs was paralyzed), therefore, the percentage of disability may be reduced.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. As far as the percentage of disability is concerned, Dr. Subhash Agarwal (AW-4) has stated that the injured has sustained permanent disability vide permanent disability certificate, Ex.P/38. But, he admitted that he has not treated

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13220

3 MA-939-2017 and conducted any operation. Keeping in view the entire statement of the witness coupled with the statement of injured Amar Singh, learned Tribunal while assuming the permanent physical disability as 100% but for income loss has properly assumed it as 80%, keeping in view the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr.,(2011) ACJ 1.

7. Learned Tribunal has assumed the income of injured as Rs.4000/- per month. It is not in dispute that on the date of accident i.e., 18.11.2013, the minimum wage of unskilled labour was Rs.5520/- per month. In view of the facts and circumstance of the case and evidence on record, the income of injured ought to be assumed as Rs.5520/-per month. So far as the future prospects are concerned, no amount towards future prosects has been awarded by learned Tribunal. Keeping in view the age of appellant Amar Singh at the time of accident as 42 years, the multiplier of 14 is properly applied. The injured is entitled to the future prospects at the rate of 25%. On other heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded the amount of medical bills as Rs.44003/-, for special diet Rs.20,000/-. For loss of income Rs.3000/- per month, ought to be Rs.5520/- per month, for future treatment Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal and for attender expenses Rs.50,000/-, loss of consortium and loss of family enjoyment Rs.80,000/-, for future transportation charges Rs.20,000/-, the amount of pain and suffering is properly covered by these heads. In the considered opinion of this Court except the assumption of monthly income and amount towards future prospects, rest of the compensation amount is appropriate in favour of the appellant. There is no cross appeal on behalf of the insurance company.

8. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the

appellant would be entitled for the following compensation:

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13220

4 MA-939-2017 Amount of compensation Amount of compensation assessed by S.No. Head awarded by this Court Claims Tribunal Rs.3200/- per month (with Rs.4416/- per month (with 80%