Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Sonam Devi vs Smt Rinki on 17 October, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26707
1 MA-4011-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 17 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 4011 of 2023
SMT SONAM DEVI AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT RINKI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Meena Singhal - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Rajesh Gupta- Advocate for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company.
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal by appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is arising out of the Award dated 24.03.2023 passed by
Member, Ninth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (hereinafter it would be
referred to as "the Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No.555/2022 on account of
inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation amount.
2. The date of accident, negligence and issue of liability are not in dispute and
the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal in this regard are also not in question.
3. As per findings of the Claims Tribunal, in the case of death of Manish Soni in
the motor accident, an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.61,37,532/- has been
awarded by the Claims Tribunal with interest from the date of filing of claim petition
till its realization.
4. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that Claims Tribunal has
committed an error in not awarding just and proper amount of compensation as
deceased was a Government Employee and was aged around 27 years at the time of
alleged accident, which is an undisputed fact. It is further submitted that according to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26707
2 MA-4011-2023
the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700, if deceased was working in a Government Job or his/her
age was below than 40 years, then 50% income must be added under the head of future
prospects at the time of awarding compensation, but the Claims Tribunal has erred in
law by adding future prospects at 40% instead of 50%. Further contention of counsel
for claimants is that parents (mother and father) and grandmother of the deceased are
also entitled to get consortium in the light of the judgment passed by Apex Court in the
case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur and others reported in 2020
ACJ 2131. It is further submitted by counsel for the claimants that Claims Tribunal has
committed error in not giving any compensation under the head of loss of estate.
Therefore, the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal be set aside and the reasonable
amount of compensation be awarded by adding reasonable proper future prospect, loss
of estate and other heads etc. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned award.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance
Company has filed cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22 r/w Section 151 of CPC
for reduction of compensation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this appeal. In support
of his contention, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance on
the judgment dated 12th of December, 2007 delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava and others ( Appeal
(Civil) No. 5830 of 2007) and judgment dated 23rd of April, 2014 delivered in the case
of Manasvi Jain vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 7642 of 2009).
6. In reply, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that respondent
No.3/Insurance Company has satisfied with the award and has not filed any cross-
appeal in this regard. So, the Insurance Company is not liable to file any cross-
objections.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26707
3 MA-4011-2023
8. First moot question for consideration is that as to whether cross-appeal filed by
the respondent/Insurance Company is maintainable or not?
9. In the present case, respondent/Insurance Company has not filed any appeal
and it is also undisputed fact that Insurance Company is satisfied with the impugned
Award. In the case of Bherusingh and Others Vs. Mahesh and Other reported in 2014
ACJ 642, in which the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that cross-objection
filed by Insurance Company after satisfying the Award and no appeal has been filed by
Insurance Company. Claimants approached this Court for enhancement of
compensation, at that time cross-objection is being filed which on the face of it, does
not appear to be bona fide. So, it is the duty of the Insurance Company to approach this
Court without satisfying the award, therefore, cross-objection is not maintainable. In
M.A.No.3705 of 2017 (Dharmendra Gond Vs. Mukesh Rawat and Others), Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.05.2024 has also held the same view.
10. So, in the light of the above cited cases, cross-objection filed on behalf of
Insurance Company has no substance and as the Insurance Company has not filed any
appeal as well as after satisfying the impugned award, cross-objection is not
maintainable.
11. So far as the contention raised on behalf of claimants regarding inadequacy of
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation is concerned, it is undisputed
fact that deceased was working as Government employee because he was posted as
Assistant Grade-III in Civil Court, Gohad, District Bhind.
12. As regards loss of income including future prospects, in the light of judgment
of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled for loss of income including future
prospects. As per decision of Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), future
prospects must be added at 50% instead of 40% looking to the age of the deceased at
the time of alleged accident as 27 years as well as he was working as a Government
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26707
4 MA-4011-2023
Employee, therefore, finding recorded with regard to future prospects by the claims
tribunal deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside.
13. So far as the contention of counsel for claimants with regard to loss of
consortium is concerned, in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Satinder Kaur (supra), only appellant No.3-mother and appellant No.4-
father are entitled to get compensation towards loss of consortium as they are parents
of the deceased. Appellant No.5-grandmother is not entitled to get compensation as she
is not covered under the provision as laid down in the above cited case. Further, under
the head of loss of estate, claimants are also entitled for Rs.16,500/-.
14. Accordingly, claimants are entitled to get compensation under the following
heads:-
Heads Amount
Income Rs.27,960/-
Annual Income Rs.27960X 12= 335520/-
After adding Future Prospect 50% Rs.503280/-
After adding deduction 3/4 Rs.377460/-
Multiplier 17 Rs.6416820/-
Loss of consortium Rs.44000 x 4 = 176000/-
Loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.33,000/-
Enhanced Compensation Rs.66,25,820/-
15. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant case is
Rs.66,25,820/- as against the Award of the Claims Tribunal of Rs.61,37,532/-.
Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are entitled to an additional sum of Rs.4,88,288/-
over and above the amount, which has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
16. In the result, this miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed, by enhancing the
compensation amount by a sum of Rs.4,88,288/-. The enhanced amount shall carry
interest as fixed by the learned Claims Tribunal from the date of filing of claim petition
till its realization. The said amount be paid within a period of three months from the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26707
5 MA-4011-2023
date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Rest of conditions as imposed by learned
Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.
17. If the enhanced amount of compensation is in excess to the valuation of
appeal, the difference of the Court fee (if not already paid) shall be deposited by the
appellants- claimants within a period of one month and proof thereof, shall be
submitted before the Registry. Thereafter, the Registry shall issue the certified copy of
the order passed today.
18. In view of above, miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant
stands disposed of.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
*VJ*
