Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh vs Rajesh on 25 March, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7955
1 MA-4498-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
MISC. APPEAL No. 4498 of 2022
SMT. HEERAMANI AND OTHERS
Versus
RAJESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sameer Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhashkar Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent [R-3].
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 4499 of 2022
MUKESH
Versus
RAJESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sameer Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhashkar Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent [R-3].
Heard on : 01.03.2025
Pronounced on : 25.03.2025
JUDGMENT
With the consent of the parties, heard the matter finally.
2. Both these appeals are arising out of the same award and have been
analogously heard and are being decided by this common order.
3. Both the appeals have been filed by the claimants under Section 173
(1) of Motor Vehicles Act being aggrieved by the award dated 15.07.2022
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7955
2 MA-4498-2022
passed by 2nd Member, MACT, District Indore in claim case Nos. 316/2016
and 317/2016 on account of inadequacy of compensation and seeking
enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.
4 . In a nutshell, relevant facts in brief are that on 24.07.2016
appellant/claimant Mukesh and his son/Jeet while going to Indore bypass on
motorcycle and on arrival in front of Omax City, by pass, Indore, a bus
bearing No. KL13 AA 8586 rashly and negligently driven by the respondent
No.1 hit appellant's motorcycle, as a result both have suffered grievous
injuries. Appellant/Mukesh's son Jeet also received injuries on his head and
chest, due to which, he was died during treatment. Thereafter, a report has
been lodged at Police Station Lasudiya, Indore.
5. The date of accident, negligence and the issue of liability are not in
dispute and the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard are also not
in question. As per the findings of the Tribunal, in case of the claimants
(Claim Case No. 317/2016), in which son of claimants Jeet was died, has
awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,41,000/- alongwith 6% interest from
the date of filing of the claim petition till realization in favour of the
claimants and in case of claimant/Mukesh (Claim Case No. 316/2016) who
suffered fracture of femur bone of right side, fracture on right clavicle bone,
fracture multiple rib right side and fracture right fleck of great toe off, the
Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,71,343/- alongwith 6%
interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization in favour
of the claimant/Mukesh.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7955
3 MA-4498-2022
committed an error in not awarding just and proper amount of compensation
in the case as the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The
Tribunal has committed error in not considering the permanent disability of
appellant/Mukesh and has not awarded any amount under permanent
disability. The Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding any sum
under the head of future prospects keeping in view the verdict of the Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others -
2017 ACJ 2700 . The Tribunal has committed error in granting meagre
amount. Hence, prays for just and proper amount of compensation in the
matter.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company
argued in support of the impugned award and contended that the Claims
Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation amount in the case which
does not call for any interference by this Court.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, I find substance in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the
appellant.
9. On perusal of the record available with the case, it reveals that the
Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount in Claim Case No. 316/2016
under the head of permanent disability whereas the Tribunal has itself
mentioned in para 29 of the impugned award that the appellant Mukesh has
suffered with 30% permanent disability, but has not awarded any
compensation under the head of permanent disability. Certainly, the
appellant - Mukesh was an employee of Municipal Corporation and his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7955
4 MA-4498-2022
monthly pay was not stopped but he had to suffer for the said permanent
disability in daily life routine and due to that he will not be able to help his
household and domestic work. Hence, he should be awarded some
compensation in this head.
10. Looking to the fact that, he has received multiple fracture of femur
bone of right side, fracture on right clavicle bone, fracture multiple rib right
side and fracture right fleck of great toe off, it would be appropriate to
assume 10% permanent disability in his whole life and it should be
calculated by monthly income of the appellant -Mukesh.
11. On this aspect, the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Mohammad Sabeer Vs. Regional Manager, 2022 LiveLaw 2017 ,
wherein it is held that even if a person's earning is increased after accident, he
will be entitled for compensation towards disability.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, law laid down
by Hon'ble Apex Court, as also the 10% permanent disability and adding
future prospects, the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal (in
Claim case No. 316/2016) is on the lower side which deserves to be
enhanced by assuming income of Rs.13,580/-, as under :
Permanent Disablement Rs.13580/- per month X
12=1,62,960 X 16 (multiplier) X
10% (P.D.) = Rs.2,60,736/-
Loss of Income Rs.27,160/-
Medical Expenses Rs.2,18,443/-
Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-
Attendant expenses Rs.10,000/-
Special diet Rs.10,000/-
Transportation Rs.10,000/-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7955
5 MA-4498-2022
Loss of leave Rs.40,700/-
Loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/-
TOTAL Rs.6,52,039/-
MACT Awarded Amount Rs.3,71,343/-
Enhanced Amount Rs.2,80,696/-
13. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the case
(Claim No. 316/2016) is Rs.6,52,039/- as against the award of the Tribunal
of Rs.3,71,343/-. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to an additional sum
of Rs.2,80,696/- over and above the amount which has been awarded by the
Tribunal.
14. So far as the compensation amount of Rs.5,41,000/- awarded by
claims tribunal in Claims Case No. 317/2016 is concerned, the Claims
Tribunal has followed the law laid down in the cases of Manjudevi Vs.
Musafir, 2005 SCJ 99 SC and National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 and awarded compensation amount by
assuming notional income of Rs.15,000/- as the deceased Jeet was aged
about 10 years at the time of accident, also by adding future prospects of
40%, further multiplied by 20, filial consortium, funeral and loss of estate,
accordingly, award amount of Rs.5,41,000/-, the same does not warrant any
interference.
15. The appellant/Mukesh has valued the appeal only to the extent of
Rs.4 lakhs and paid the Court fee accordingly. However, for the remaining
amount, the Court fee shall be paid by the appellant within a period of one
month and thereafter the amount shall be released on receiving the
certificate. In case the certificate has not been filed before the Insurance
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7955
6 MA-4498-2022
Company up to a period of three months, the claimant shall not be entitled to
receive the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation.
16. In view of the aforesaid analysis, proposition of law and
considering the evidence of claimants, it is apparent that the learned Claim
Tribunal has elaborately discussed the evidence and law in Claim Case No.
317/2016, adjudicated the award for the claimants, no error is found in the
judgment while holding the liability against respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Accordingly, the findings of learned Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No.
317/2016 does not call for any interference. This appeal (M.A. No.
4498/2022) filed for set aside the impugned award, being bereft of merits,
deserve to be and is hereby dismissed and M.A. No. 4499/2022 is partly
allowed to the extent indicated herein above. The enhanced amount shall
bear interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal. The other findings
recorded by the Tribunal shall remain intact.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
Vindesh
