Vindravan Jatav vs Rammohan Khatik
2025 Latest Caselaw 995 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vindravan Jatav vs Rammohan Khatik on 1 July, 2025

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13341




                                                            1                              MA-3480-2017
                            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. 3480 of 2017
                                                 VINDRAVAN JATAV
                                                      Versus
                                            RAMMOHAN KHATIK AND OTHERS
                         Appearance:
                                 Shri Arun Sharma - Advocate for appellant.
                                 Shri B.N. Malhotra - Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance
                         Company.

                                                                ORDER

This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the amount awarded by MACT Gwalior, vide award dated 03.11.2017 in Claim Case No.27/2015 whereby MACT has awarded an amount of Rs.3,26,000/- alongwith interest @ 7 % per annum to the claimant.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that on

14.07.2014, the appellant was going from Morar to his home at Bijauli in Auto bearing registration No. M.P. 07 R 6366 along with Sardar Singh and Maharaj Singh, at that time just ahead of Khuderi village, under the big bridge on the highway road, the respondent No.1/driver of the auto drove the auto rashly and negligently, due to which the auto overturned, and leg of the appellant who was sitting at the edge, got crushed under the auto and he

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13341

2 MA-3480-2017 sustained fracture. A report of the incident was registered at Police Station Morar at Crime No. 522/2014.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the present appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal, on the ground that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the injured as Rs.3,000/- per month, whereas on the date of the accident, the minimum wage for an unskilled labourer was Rs.5,845/- per month. Moreover, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under other heads is also on the lower side. The learned Tribunal has mentioned the fact that during the operation, an external fixator was implanted in the left leg of the injured, and the injured remained admitted in the hospital on various dates. Therefore, the compensation

amount under the head of loss of income as well as under other heads ought to be enhanced. It is also submitted that although the Insurance Company has filed cross-objection (I.A. No.399/2018), but the same is not tenable, as there is already an order of pay and recover against it, and no appeal has been filed on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle. He also relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Bherusingh and others vs. Mahesh and others, 2014 ACJ 642.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3/Insurance Company has opposed the prayer on the ground that the Insurance Company has rightly filed the cross-objection and may oppose the award. It is submitted by the counsel for the Insurance Company that since the offending vehicle was being driven without a valid permit and in

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13341

3 MA-3480-2017 violation of the conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company ought to be completely exonerated. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.97,000/- for attendant's expenses and Rs. 1 lakh for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment and mental trauma, which are on the higher side. The learned Tribunal has wrongly directed to pay and recover against the Insurance Company. Therefore, he prays to allow the cross-objection and seeks appropriate directions accordingly.

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

6. Learned counsel for appellant has relied upon the judgment passed in case of Bherusingh (Supra) wherein it has been held that the Insurance Company can approach the court without satisfying the award, and once the award is satisfied and no appeal is filed, then Insurance Company cannot file cross objection in an appeal filed on behalf of claimant for enhancement of compensation. It has been held that, in such circumstances, cross-objection filed by the Insurance Company is not maintainable.

7. Having regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid case, the cross- objection filed on behalf of the Insurance Company is not maintainable. However, for the sake of argument, even if it is considered, then it is found that the learned Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record, the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, and the fact that the appellant remained admitted in various hospitals for about 97 days, has rightly awarded compensation. There is no justifiable ground for reduction of the compensation granted in favour of the

claimant.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13341

4 MA-3480-2017

8. As far as the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant/claimant is concerned, mainly the determination of monthly income of the claimant, which was assumed by the learned Tribunal to be Rs.3,000/- per month, has been challenged on the ground that, on the date of the accident, the minimum wage for an unskilled labourer was Rs.5,845/- per month, as per the notification issued by the Labour Department. Therefore, instead of Rs.3,000/-, the claimant's monthly income ought to have been assessed at Rs.5,845/-.

9. I find force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in that regard. Since the income of the claimant is not got established by the claimant, hence the minimum wage for unskilled labour, at the time of the accident which was Rs. 5,845/- per month, may be resorted to, and the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the same as the monthly income of the claimant. In Paragraph 27 of the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for 24 months' loss of income to the injured, amounting to Rs.72,000/-. If the difference of monthly pay i.e. Rs. 2,845/- is multiplied by 24 months, then it comes to Rs.68,280/-. For such amount, the claimant is entitled for enhancement to the compensation but on other heads, there is no ground for enhancement.

10. Accordingly, the cross-objection (I.A. No.399/2018) filed on behalf Insurance Company is hereby dismissed and and the appeal filed by the appellant/claimant is allowed in part by enhancing the amount of compensation by Rs.68,280/- in addition to the amount awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6%

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13341

5 MA-3480-2017 per annum. The other terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE

Aman