Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bajrang Pratap Singh @ Amit Bhadoriya vs Mukesh Kushwah on 18 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12334
1 MA-303-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 18 th OF JUNE, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 303 of 2017
BAJRANG PRATAP SINGH @ AMIT BHADORIYA
Versus
MUKESH KUSHWAH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Smt. Meena Singhal - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri R.V.Sharma - 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 4th MACT, Gwalior, vide award dated
21.12.2016 in Claim Case No.300084/2015 whereby MACT has awarded an
amount of Rs.4,70,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum to the claimant for
the injuries suffered in a vehicle accident.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of this appeal are that on 25.04.2014 the
appellant along with his nephew (Bhanja) was going to village Rura Sirsa, Distt.
Jalaun from Gwalior on a motorcycle. He was driving the motorcycle in slow
speed. As soon as he reached near Barahhead Gurudwara on Gwalior Bhind road,
respondent No.1 by driving the offending vehicle rashly & negligently from the
opposite side dashed the motorcycle, due to which they fell down on the ground.
Due to the accident, he suffered various fractures.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that before the accident appellant
was working as Supervisor at Pioneer Builders, Krishna Market, Lashkar,
Gwalior, and was getting Rs.15,000/- per month as salary. From that income, the
appellant used to maintain his entire family. Appellant is the only son in his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12334
2 MA-303-2017
family, and therefore, entire responsibility of his family is on him. After the
accident due to the condition of appellant he was admitted in ICU where he went
in coma and thereafter he was referred to Delhi. On 26.04.2014 he was being
brought to Delhi by Ambulance, but as his condition became very serious in the
way he was admitted in S.S.Hospital, Agra. After examining and testing the
injuries, the doctors found that he sustained grievous injuries and as his condition
was serious, therefore, he was admitted in ICU. He remained unconscious for six
days. Surgery of his right leg was conducted as there was fracture in tibia and
fibula bone and an expensive rod was inserted in the said leg. Thereafter operation
of his femur bone was conducted and an expensive rod in his right thigh was
inserted. His finger of left hand was also fractured, and therefore, plaster was
applied in the said finger. He also sustained a deep wound above right elbow for
which about 10 stitches were applied. The appellant remained admitted in the said
hospital from 26.04.2014 to 14.05.2014 and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was spent on
his treatment. Thereafter again on 09.07.2014 he was admitted in S.S. Hospital,
Agra, where again surgery of his right leg was conducted. He remained admitted
there till 10.07.2014.
4 . It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that due to
permanent disability and handicap, even his wife started living in her parental
home, due to which his married life has ruined. Due to the fractures in femur and
tibia & Fibula bone, he developed permanent disability in his right leg, as a result
of which he is unable to perform his daily routine. Due to the severe fracture in
the middle finger of left hand, he is unable to hold any object with his left hand. It
is further submitted that due to the grievous injuries on head, he has become
mentally unwell. It is further submitted that due to the permanent disability, he is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12334
3 MA-303-2017
unable to perform his work. Therefore, prayed for enhancement of the award.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company has
opposed the prayer on the ground that learned Tribunal has awarded appropriate
amount of compensation on various heads and there is no ground for
enhancement.
6. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.
7. Appellant Bajrang (AW-1) deposed before the learned Tribunal that he has
passed B.Sc. final with good marks and also completed his B.Ad. course with first
class. He did CCNA computer course and he was excellent in study. He was also
preparing for competitive exam and applied for the post of Constable in U.P.
police in 2013 and he passed written examination and UP police issued him call
letter for the physical test, but before that he met with accident on 25.04.2014. He
also stated that he was working on the post of supervisor in Pioneer Buildings and
was in receipt of Rs.15,000/- per month as salary. He has sustained grievous injury
in right leg. There was a fracture on tibia, fibula and femur bone. He also sustained
fracture in finger of left hand and elbow of right hand. He went in coma and
thereafter referred to Delhi for further treatment, but since his condition was not
good, therefore, he has been admitted in S.S.Hospital, Agra. He remained admitted
there between 26.04.2014 to 14.05.2014, 09.07.2014 to 10.07.2014 and thereafter
from 15.01.2015 to 19.01.2015, but even after continuous treatment and operation,
his condition was not improved and he developed permanent disability. He also
needs future treatment. His wife also left him.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that just compensation must
be awarded in case of injuries and permanent disability. She placed reliance on the
following judgments in this regard :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12334
4 MA-303-2017
(i) Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanvi vs. Abdul Munaf, 2025(1) T.A.C. 720
SC
(ii) V.Mekala vs. M.Malather, 2014 ACJ 1441 SC
(iii) Deepak Singh vs. Mukesh and Ors., 2025(1) TAC 768 SC
(iv) Jagdish vs. Mohan, 2018 ACJ 1011 SC
(v) Prakash Chand Sharma vs. Rambabu Saini & Anr. decided in SLP
(C) No.3066/2024 on 10.02.2025.
(vi) Perminder Singh vs. New India Ass. Co., 2019 ACJ 2401 SC
9. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that income of present
appellant ought to have been assumed as Rs.15,000/- per month. Learned counsel
placed reliance on the following judgments in this regard:-
(i) Rashmita & Ors. vs. D.M. National Ins., 2022 ACJ 207 SC
(ii) Mohd. Siddique vs. National Ins. Co., 2020 ACJ 751 SC
(iii) Parminder Singh vs. New India Assurance, 2019 ACJ 2401 SC
(iv) New India Assurance Co. vs. Reena & Ors. decided on 26th July,
(v) Savita Gulati vs. Manjit Singh, 2024 ACJ 608 P & J HC
(vi) Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State vs. R.Natrajan, 2024 ACJ
632 Mad. HC.
(vii) V.Mekala vs. M.Malather, 2014 ACJ 1441 SC
(viii) Nikita Raghuwanshi vs. Amzad, 2025 ACJ 317 MP HC
(ix) Oriental Insurance Co. vs. Meenakshi & Ors., 2020 ACJ 2870 P &
H HC.
This Court is in full agreement with the law laid down in aforesaid citations that
just and fair compensation must be awarded in claim cases keeping in view the
aforesaid citations, but in this respect evidence adduced by the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case are very important. Income in different cases as
cited above has been found proved in light of evidence adduced in that case regard
being had to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case as well as evidence
adduced by the parties for ascertaining the income of the injured.
10. In cross-examination appellant Bajranj (AW-1) admitted that he has not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12334
5 MA-303-2017
filed any letter of appointment issued by Pioneer Builders. Salary was given to
him in cash. He also admitted that except the certificate issued by Pioneer Builders
as Ex.P/115, there is no other record in respect of his employment with Pioneer
Builders. No attendance register etc. has been filed. Though appellant has got
examined Shailendra Singh Kushwaha (AW-3) who is said to be the owner of the
construction company and he stated that since January, 2013 the appellant was
working as Supervisor on monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- per month, but he also
admitted in his cross-examination that no registration certificate of the firm,
income tax return, attendance register, receipts of salary and other details of
Pioneer Builders have been filed by him except mere certificate Ex.P/115. He also
admitted in para 10 that there is no document on record which reveals that he is
the owner of Pioneer Builders.
11. NC Verma (NAW-1), who is the investigator in this case appointed on
behalf of Insurance Company has stated in his statement that during the enquiry of
the salary certificate he went many times to the office of Pioneers Builders, but he
did not find any shop or office there. He has also issued notice Ex.D/3 on the given
address of the Pioneer Builders, but no response has been received by him. The
statement of this witness also renders salary certificate Ex.P/115 doubtful.
12. In the case of case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others vs. Mohammed
Jameel and another, (2009)2 SCC 225 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that that
onus lies on the claimant to prove the fact of income by leading reliable and cogent
evidence before the Tribunal. Bare assertions in the claim petition in this behalf is
not sufficient to discharge the onus with regard to proving the income. Therefore,
it was incumbent upon the appellant to prove his income from Pioneer Builders as
Rs.15,000/- per month with cogent and reliable evidence, but it is missing on
record. In such circumstances, the minimum wages declared by Labour
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12334
6 MA-303-2017
Department may be resorted to. At the relevant date of accident as per the
notification of Labour Department, minimum wages of a skilled labourer was
Rs.6,125/- per month. Since the appellant was highly educated and also applied for
the post of Constable in UP police, therefore, minimum wages of skilled labourer
may be adopted in this case for assessment of compensation to the appellant. The
assessment of income of the appellant as Rs.5,000/- per month by the Tribunal is
on lower side.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that expenses of medical
treatment past and future should also have been allowed. She placed reliance on
the following judgments in this regard :-
(i) Deepak Singh vs. Mukesh and Ors., 2025(1) TAC 768 SC
(ii) Cholamandlam M.S. Gen. Inss. Vs. Dukhani Ghosh & Ors., 2023
ACJ 2825 Jhar. HC
(iii) Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanvi vs. Abdul Munaf, 2025(1) T.A.C.
720 SC
In this respect, the evidence on record is to be considered.
14. Appellant Bajrang (AW-1) though admitted in cross-examination that he has
not filed any document with regard to the treatment being taken by him at that time
and as regards future treatment, but injuries sustained by appellant, have been
proved by various documents exhibited and proved by the appellant. He has
sustained grievous injuries and various fractures in his right leg and both the
hands. Learned tribunal while assessing the amount of compensation as regards
medical expenses did not consider some bills and also not considered expenses for
future treatment. Considering these documents and keeping in view the future
treatment of the appellant, in the considered opinion of this Court, Rs.2,50,000/-
instead of Rs.1,86,000/- would be appropriate as compensation under this head .
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12334
7 MA-303-2017
15. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that permanent disability to the
appellant ought to have been considered as 100%. She placed reliance on the
following judgments in this regard:-
(i) Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanvi vs. Abdul Munaf, 2025(1) T.A.C. 720
SC
(ii) Jagdish vs. Mohan, 2018 ACJ 1011 SC
(iii) Chanappa Nagappa Muchalagoda vs. Divisional Manager, New
India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2020 ACJ 704 SC
(iv) Chandramma vs. Regional Office NCC Ltd. & Ors., 2023 ACJ 806
SC
(v) Reena Pal vs. Tehsildar decided in M.A.No.1229/2010 on
28.11.2019
(vi) Vinod vs. Rambir & Ors., 2010(1) MACD 209 MP HC
(vii) Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul Dande, 2017 ACJ 979 SC
(viii) Hare Krishna Mahant vs. Himadari Sahu & Ors. decided in SLP
(C) No.5541/2023 on 07.02.2025.
(ix)V.Mekala vs. M.Malather, 2014 ACJ 1441 SC
(x) Deepak Singh vs. Mukesh and Ors., 2025(1) TAC 768 SC
(xi) Karthik Subromonign vs. B. Sarath Baby, 2021 ACJ 993
(xii) National Insurance Co. vs. Tapan Debnath, 2024(3) TAC 818 Tri.
HC
It is pertinent to mention here that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by
the parties are relevant for assessing percentage of disability in particular case.
Therefore, on the basis of evidence on record and facts and circumstances of the
case, percentage of disability ought to be determined.
1 6 . Here in this case, Dr. Mukesh Chug (AW-4) while describing various
injuries sustained by the appellant has stated that he has found infirmity in the right
leg in respect of its strength, loss of movement and strength of muscles. He is also
having problem in climbing stairs. He by using modified Kessler method, issued
permanent disability certificate of 65% as Ex.P/120, but he admitted categorically
in his cross-examination that there is possibility of improvement in permanent
disability by proper treatment and that he mentioned percentage of disability in
reference to a particular limb and not in respect of entire body. He also admitted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12334
8 MA-303-2017
that he has not filed any copy of MIC standard in respect of percentage of
disability nor he has mentioned any rules of Medical Council of India and or
Health Department, Govt. of India, in Ex.P/120/121. In para 8, he also admitted
that the patient can climb stairs with the help of stick. He can perform computer
work with the help of chair and table.
17. Certificate (Ex.P/103) issued by Medical Board dated 10.10.2014 shows
45% permanent disability to the appellant which was issued prior to the certificate
issued as Ex.P/120 and Ex.P/121 dated 21.08.2016.
18. The Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011)
ACJ 1 has held that percentage of disability vis-a-vis permanent disability
certificate be assessed with circumspection. All injuries or permanent disabilities
arising from injuries do not result in loss of earning capacity and the percentage of
permanent disability with reference to whole body of a person, cannot be assumed
to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. Paras 12 and 13 of the decision in
the case of Raj Kumar (supra) are relevant and are being quoted verbatim as under
:-
"12. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept
the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who
give `ready to use' disability certificates, without proper medical
assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who
without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates
to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by
duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to
evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal
may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor
who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere
production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be
proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who
treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent
of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross- examination with
reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the
medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical
Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local
Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical
Board for assessment of the disability.
13. We may now summarise the principles discussed above :
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12334
9 MA-303-2017
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not
result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole
body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of
earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning
capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability
(except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence,
concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as
percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him
subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give
evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of
earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the
Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages
of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the
nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other
factors."
19. In case of Raj Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has assumed the
loss of future earning capacity as 20%, whereas the permanent disability certificate
shows 45% disability, but here in this case keeping in view the educational
qualification of appellant as well as the fact that he was preparing for the post of
Constable in U.P. Police and he has successfully passed written examination and
has been called for physical test, the percentage of loss of earning capacity may
safely be assessed as 30%.
20. Learned counsel for the present appellant has submitted that on the head of
pain & suffering, loss of marriage prospect, special diet, attender expenses and
transportation expenses, compensation granted is on lower side. In this regard, she
relied on the following judgments:-
(i) Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanvi vs. Abdul Munaf, 2025(1) T.A.C. 720
SC
(ii)Deepak Singh vs. Mukesh and Ors., 2025(1) TAC 768 SC
(iii) V. Mekala vs. M. Malather, 2014 ACJ 1441 SC
This Court is in respectful agreement with the citations submitted on behalf of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12334
10 MA-303-2017
present appellant, but keeping in view the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Raj Kumar (supra) & National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017
ACJ 2700 and having regard to the evidence and facts and circumstances of the
particular case, it would be appropriate to award just and fair compensation in
these heads.
21. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,000/- each for attender expenses and
special diet assuming three months expenses at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month
towards these heads, but in the considered opinion of this Court, having regard to
the duration of treatment of the appellant, on both the heads Rs.18,000/- each
would be appropriate amount. Having regard to number and nature of injuries and
number of admissions in hospital at Agra, on the head of transportation charges
amount of Rs.25,000/- would be appropriate instead of Rs.15,000/- and on the
head of pain and suffering amount of Rs.1,00,000/- would be appropriate instead
of Rs.35,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that minimum 50% should
be added as future prospects. In this regard, she relied on following judgments :-
(i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700
(ii) V. Mekala vs. M. Malather, 2014 ACJ 1441 SC
(iii) Reena Pal vs. Tehsildar & Ors. decided in M.A.No.1229/2010 on
28.11.2019
(iv) Jagdish vs. Mohan, 2018 ACJ 1011 SC
(v) Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanvi vs. Abdul Munaf, 2025(1) T.A.C. 720
SC
(vi) Sanjay Ku. vs. Ashok Kumar, decided in Civil Appeal
No.896/2014 pm 24.01.2014
(vii) Parminder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2019 ACJ
2401 SC
But keeping in view the decision of Larger Bench in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra), it is found that appellant was not in government service or permanent
service. He was student and was not engaged in any employment. Therefore, in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12334
11 MA-303-2017
considered opinion of this Court, increase of 40% in his income towards future
prospect would be appropriate.
23. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that age of the appellant was 24
years as per documentary evidence so multiplier of 18 would be applicable. She
relied upon the following judgments :-
(i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700
(ii) Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corpn., 2009 ACJ 1298 SC
(iii) Jagdish vs. Mohan, 2018 ACJ 1011 SC
(iv) V.Mekala vs. M.Malather, 2014 ACJ 1441 SC
This Court is also in complete agreement with the citations and the arguments of
present appellant. It is also not in dispute as learned trial Court has appropriately
applied multiplier of 18.
24. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the appellant would be entitled for
the following compensation:-
Amount of
compensation Amount of Compensation
Sr.No. Head
awarded by assessed by this Court
Claims Tribunal
Loss of income Income 6125+ 40% future
on account of prospect= 8575x 12=1,02,900 x
1. 2,16,000/-
permanent 18= 18,52,200 x 30% (PD) =
disability 5,55,660/-
Medical
1,86,000/-
2. expenses (future 2,50,000/-
treatment)
3. Pain & suffering 35,000/- 1,00,000/-
4. Special diet 9,000/- 18,000/-
Attender
5. 9,000/- 18,000/-
expenses
6. Transportation 15,000/- 25,000
expenses
7. Total 4,70,000/- 9,66,660/-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12334
12 MA-303-2017
8. Additional 4,96,660/-
enhancement
25. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in above terms. Rest of the terms &
conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
ms/-
