Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rekhabai Patidar vs Mahendrasingh on 27 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15964
1 MA-926-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 27th OF JUNE, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 926 of 2024
REKHABAI PATIDAR AND OTHERS
Versus
MAHENDRASINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sameer Verma, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Mayank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the award
dated 13.5.2022 passed in MACC No.303/2018 challenging inadequacy of
the compensation.
2. The factum of accident and the liability of the Insurance Company
are not in dispute.
3. Short facts giving rise to the facts of the case are that on 17.9.2018
at around 7.00 PM deceased Abhishek was going to village Daloda Sagra by
his motorcycle. When he reached on Mhow-Neemuch Highway Road near
Daloda Lakhmakhedi Crusher Machine, at that time Tractor bearing
registration No.MP-14-AB-3072, which was being driven in a rash and
negligent manner by the respondent No.1, hit motorcycle of the deceased
from behind. Due to which deceased Abhishek fell on the ground alongwith
his motorcycle and sustained serious head injury, due to which he has died.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15964
2 MA-926-2024
An FIR was registered under Section 304 of IPC at Crime No.342/2018 in
P.S., Bhavnagar, District Mandsaur for the said accident.
3.1 The appellants/claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act pursuant to the said accident for payment of
compensation to the tune of Rs.41,00,000/-. The learned claims Tribunal
after considering the material on record concluded in para 13 of the award
that the deceased was not wearing helmet, thus he also found to have
contributory negligence to the extent of 20%. The claims Tribunal after
assessing income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month in terms of
findings recorded in para 16 of the award has considered age of the deceased
at 20 years and in terms of the law as laid down in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, an
addition of 40% was made in the income of the deceased. Thus a total
compensation for loss of dependency was taken to Rs.11,42,400/-. Apart
from this an amount of Rs.1,32,000/- was awarded in the head of consortium
(for three claimants Rs.44,000/- each), an amount of Rs.16,500/- for funeral
expenses and another amount of Rs.16,500/- for loss of estate was awarded.
As such, total amount of Rs.13,07,400/- was awarded by the claims Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that deduction of 20%
from income of the deceased by holding that he was negligent in not wearing
the helmet is not in accordance with law. In this regard he refers to the
judgment rendered by this Court in M.A.No.4177/2023 (Smt. Shyama and
others Vs. Raju and others) decided on 24.4.2025.
4.1 He further submits that appellants have established that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15964
3 MA-926-2024
deceased was doing agricultural work as well as selling milk and at the time
of death his monthly income was Rs.20,000/- per month, but the learned
claims Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month
on notional basis, which is on a very lower side in view of the specific
evidence recorded by the appellants in support of their claim.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company supported the findings of the award and has stated that it was
indeed a case of contributory negligence for the simple reason that deceased
was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. It is submitted that had the
deceased was wearing helmet, he would not have died because his death has
occurred because of head injury. Thus, the contributory negligence was
found correctly proved by the claims Tribunal. He further submits that as
regards income of the deceased on notional basis taken by the claims
Tribunal is based on the material, which was available on record. he submits
that appellants failed to bring any clinching material on record that the
deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Thus, no fault can be found
with the findings recorded by the claims Tribunal. He, thus, submits that no
interference is warranted in the quantum of compensation.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. At the outset the findings regarding contributory negligence by the
claims Tribunal appears to be unsustainable in the eyes of law for the reason
that it has already concluded by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the cases of Smt. Shyama (supra) and in the case of Anjana Narayan
Kamble and others Vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15964
4 MA-926-2024
Company Limited and another, reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1811 ,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that violation of rules for
driving a motor vehicle is not a ground to deduct the amount of
compensation, unless it is proved that either the accident could have been
averted or the impact could have been minimized. There is no such findings
of the claims Tribunal in the present case that in wearing of helmet, the
impact of accident would have not caused death of the deceased. It is not
even tried to be demonstrated that what was the severity of the accident and
how the helmet could have averted the same. From the material available on
record, it is evident that the deceased sustained several grievous injuries
because of the accident. Thus, it cannot be ascertained from the material that
the helmet could have averted the death.
8. For the reasons as aforementioned the deduction to the extent of
20% owing to the contributory negligence of the deceased is hereby set
aside.
9. As regards income of the deceased from the findings recorded by
the claims Tribunal in para 16 of the award, it is clear that the deceased's age
was 28 years at the time of his death. He left behind him a widow, minor
daughter and widow mother. Clearly, all three of them were dependent on
the income of deceased. The appellants in their statements before the
Tribunal have specifically stated that he was doing agricultural work. As
such, if the deceased is treated an unskilled labour, then also qua the date of
death minimum wages of unskilled labour in terms of the guidelines issued
by M.P.State Legal Aid Authority are to be taken into account.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15964
5 MA-926-2024
10. The M.P.State Legal Aid Services Authority in tandem with the
Labour Department has issued guidelines for indicating minimum income for
unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled labourers. These guidelines are meant to
bring uniformity in assessing the income of the deceased/injured persons in
cases, where no documentary evidence is available and the income has to be
assessed notionally.
11. The date of death is 17.9.2018. The table indicates for the relevant
period that the minimum per month income of unskilled labour for the said
period would be Rs.7,325/-, which is taken to be income of the deceased.
12. As regards conventional heads it appears that just and proper
amount has been awarded by the claims Tribunal.
13. In view of the above modification the just amount of compensation
now comes to Rs.15,59,680/-. As the claims Tribunal has already awarded an
amount of Rs.10,45,920/- (after deduction of 20%), thus the appellants are
entitled for a further amount of Rs.5,13,760/- . Thus, the Insurance Company
is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,13,760/- to the appellants over and
above the amount already awarded with the interest at the same rate and in
the same manner as awarded by the claims Tribunal. Rest of the conditions
of the award shall remain intact.
14. Accordingly, the present misc.appeal is disposed off in above
terms.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15964
6 MA-926-2024
patil
