Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Farjana Bee vs Mahesh on 28 March, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8446
1 MA-6902-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 28th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 6902 of 2023
SMT. FARJANA BEE AND OTHERS
Versus
MAHESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sachin Parmar - advocate for the appellant.
Shri Monesh Jindal, learned counsel for the respondent [R-3].
Heard on : 24.03.2025
Pronounced on : 28.03.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant - claimant has filed This appeal under Section
173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant
being aggrieved by award dated 03.08.2023 passed in MACC
No.17/2022 by Second Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
District Ratlam, whereby a total compensation amount of Rs.9,54,500/-
has been awarded in favour of the claimant.
2. The present appeal is filed seeking enhancement in
compensation amount up to Rs.66,50,000/-.
3. In short, the facts of the case are that on 21.08.2021 at about
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8446
2 MA-6902-2023
5.30 to 5.40 pm, the deceased Salim was going on his motor cycle
bearing registration No.MP 43 EJ 1215 slowly on safe side and when he
was going towards Jaora from Hatpipaliya at that time the respondent
no.1, was driving the offending vehicle No. MP-13-JB-1735 rashly and
negligently, dashed down Salim Khan's vehicle due to which he
suffered serious injuries on his head and various parts of body and
expired during treatment.
4. The Tribunal while awarding the amount of compensation for
the death of deceased, has considered the entire evidence placed on
record and after recording evidence Tribunal awarded a total
compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- in the following heads:
Loss of dependency
Rs.8,77,500/-
Income taken as Rs.6,000 + Rs.1500 x 12 x 3/4
x 13)
Less Personal Exp. Rs.22,500/-(Rs.90,000-
Rs.22,500) Dependency Rs.67,500/-
Age of the deceased is 46 years hence
multiplier is taken as 13 therefore, Rs.67500/- x
13 = Rs.8,77,500/-
Loss of consortium
Rs.44,000/-
Rs.
Funeral Expenses
16,500/-
Rs.
Loss of Estate
16,500/-
TOTAL
Rs.9,54,500/-
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8446
3 MA-6902-2023
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 hence,
liable to be appropriately modified. The interest of 6% is also on very low
as per settled law on this point. The Tribunal has committed an error in not
awarding compensation 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 - 2017 ACJ 2700. In which it is held that every dependent is
entitled for consortium, hence, the view of learned Trial Court regarding
single consortium is also perverse. So far as the income is concerned, the
learned Tribunal has taken notional income as Rs. 8700/- per month and
after deductions calculated loss of dependency as Rs.8,77,500/- which is
also incorrect. Hence, prayed for awarding just and proper amount of
compensation in the case.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has 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.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going
through the record and also the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the cases of Magma General Insurance Company Limited
(Supra),Kirti (Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra) I find substance in the
arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8446
4 MA-6902-2023
8. Certainly, in this case, the claimants have not been produced
any evidence regarding income. However, it is well settled that the
income of claimant can be awarded on the basis of minimum wages
prescribed by the State. In this regard, paragraph No.11 of the judgment
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kirti and Another v.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166, is condign to
quote here:-
II. Assessment of monthly income
"11. Second, although it is correct that the claimants
have been unable to produce any document evidencing
Vinod's income, nor have they established his employment as
a teacher; but that doesn't justify adoption of the lowest tier
of minimum wage while computing his income. From the
statement of witnesses, documentary evidence on record and
circumstances of the accident, it is apparent that Vinod was
comparatively more educationally qualified and skilled.
Further, he maintained a reasonable standard of living for his
family as evidenced by his use of a 7 motorcycle for
commuting. Preserving the existing standard of living of a
deceased's family is a fundamental endeavour of motor
accident compensation law.Thus, at the very least, the
minimum wage of Rs 6197 as applicable to skilled workers
during April 2014 in the State of Haryana ought to be applied
in his case."
9. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court,
the matter has been considered. As per the minimum wages prescribed
by the National Income Chart, it would be appropriate to enhance the
notional income from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.8,700/- per month. Since, the age
of appellant is, undisputedly, 46 years at the time of incident, in view of
Pranay Sethi (Supra) 25% future prospect should be added in his income.
As such, the yearly income of deceased would be considered as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8446
5 MA-6902-2023
Rs.1,04,400/- (Rs.8700/- x12) and calculating future prospectus @ 25%
= Rs.1,30,500/- per year. After deduction of 1/4 for personal expenses,
the loss of dependency (i.e.3/4) would be Rs.97,875/- per year and after
applying multiplier of 13 it would be Rs.12,72,375/-.
10. That apart, the order of learned trial Court with regard to the
head of consortium amount, is also perverse in light of the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Nanu Ram & others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Hence, it will be
appropriate to apply multiplier of four as there are four dependents of
the deceased i.e. Rs.44,000/-x 4= 1,76,000/- under the head of
Consortium. Loss of estate and funeral expenses are taken as
Rs.16,500/- under each head.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be modified as under:
HEAD AMOUNT
Income taken Rs. 8700 +2175 (25% F.P.) =
Rs. 10875/- per month x 12 =
Rs. 1,30,500/- (per year)
Personal Expenses -1/4 = Rs.32,625/- per year
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8446
6 MA-6902-2023
Loss of dependency 3/4 -Rs.97,875/- per year
Multiplier 13 - Rs.97875/- x 13 = Rs.12,72,375/-
Loss of consortium -Rs.44,000 x 4 = Rs.1,76,000/-
Loss of estate -Rs.16,500/-
Funeral expenses -Rs.16,500/-
-------------------
TOTAL Rs.14,81,375/-
12. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant
case is Rs.14,81,375/- as against the award of the Tribunal of
Rs.9,54,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to an additional
sum of Rs.5,26,875/- over and above the amount which has been
awarded by the Tribunal.
13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount by a sum of Rs.5,26,875/-. The appellants have
valued the appeal only to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-, therefore, they are
directed to pay the Court fee for difference enhanced amount to the tune
of Rs.26,875/- The other findings recorded by the Tribunal shall remain
intact.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8446
7 MA-6902-2023
sumathi
