Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Sonkali Maravi vs Ritesh Kumar Yadav on 17 October, 2025
..1..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:53206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 17thOF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL NO. 4855 OF 2022
SMT. SONKALI MARAVI AND OTHERS
Versus
RITESH KUMAR YADAV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Saini, Advocate for appellants.
Shri Vinod Kumar Trivedi, Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
The present appeal has been filed by the appellants under
Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 challenging the
award dated 27.06.2022 passed by the Member, MACT, Mandla, in
Claim Case No. 310 of 2021.
2. That, On 29.
29.05.2021 deceased Surendra Kumar Maravi
while going with Brijesh Dhurve to carry Grocery on motorcycle
from Mandla was hit at village Jhiriya by a Truck bearing
registration number MP 51G 0443 which was being driven rashly
and negligently by the respondentno.1, owned by respondent No.2
& insured with the respondent No.3,
No. sustained fatall injuries
resulting into instantaneous death on the spot.
..2..
3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that
the deceased was a skilled labour as per the notification of the
Labour Department of Govt. of M.P. and his income should have
been assessed according to the notification. The trial court also
erred in excluding the dependency of the father of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on judgment
passed in case of Smt. Amna and another Vs. Roral Transport
Service and others (2008) ILR (MP) 125, Nur Ahamad
Abdulsab Kanavi Vs. Abdul Munaf and others 2015 INSC 191,
M. Seetharama @ Seetharama Gowda Vs. The Manager
Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others,
Sadhana Tomar & Others Vs. Ashok Kushwaha & Others,
2025 (2) JLJ 55, Deepankar Vishwas V. State of Madhya
Pradesht through P.S. Omti, District Jabalpur, 2025 (2) JLJ 61,
Ibrahim Vs. Raju and others 2012 AIR (SC) 534.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Somkali Marawi PW/1 has categorically stated that his
husband used to work as a Mason and earned Rs.15000/- per
month. Her father-in -law aged about 60 year also lived with his
son and was dependent upon the deceased. There is no evidence
regarding the income of the deceased father, therefore, the finding
of the learned tribunal is erroneous regarding the non-dependency
of father of the deceased. Secondly, it is also not rebutted in the
evidence that the deceased was a labour therefore, the assessment
of the income of Rs.5000/- is on the lower side. In my opinion the
income of the deceased should be calculated and assessed as per the
guideline of the Minimum Wages Act.
..3..
6. It is evident from the record that the deceased was
about 28 years old at the time of accident. In the absence of
documentary evidence, the Tribunal disbelieved the income of the
deceased as Rs.10000/- per month. However, the oral testimony of
the witnesses remained unchallenged on the point that the deceased
was working as an unskilled mason, engaged in building structures.
In this context, the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the
deceased below the prescribed wages under the Minimum Wages
Act. As per the applicable rates on the date of accident, the
deceased's income ought to have been assessed at Rs.8700/- per
month.
7. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 was
responsible for causing the accident and the offending vehicle was
insured with respondent No. 3 on the fateful day. The only question
for determination in this appeal is as to whether the amount
awarded by the learned Tribunal requires modification or not?
8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, this court is of the opinion that in addition to the amount
awarded by this learned MACT, the appellants are entitled for
enhancement of the amount as under: -
Amount (in
Head Computation / Details
Rs.)
1. Monthly Income As per Minimum Wages Act (2008) 8,700/-
2. Future Prospects
40% of Rs. 8,700 = Rs. 3480/- 3480/-
(40%)
3. Total Monthly Income Rs. 8,700 + Rs. 3480 12,180/-
4. Annual Income Rs. 12,180 × 12 1,46,160/-
5. Deduction towards
1/3rd of Rs. 1,46,160 48,720/-
Personal Expenses
..4..
Amount (in
Head Computation / Details
Rs.)
6. Annual Contribution to
Rs. 1,46,160 - Rs. 48,720 97,440/-
the Family
7. Multiplier Age: 28 → Multiplier = 17 --
8. Loss of Future Income Rs. 97440 × 17 16,56,480/-
9. Funeral Expenses As per Pranay Sethi judgment 15,000/-
10. Loss of Estate As per Pranay Sethi judgment 15,000/-
As per Magma General Insurance
11. Loss of Consortium 1,60,000/-
Co. Ltd. (4 dependents × Rs. 40,000)
Total Compensation 18,46,480/-
Deduction Rs. 18,46,480 - Rs. 10,22,000 8,24,480/-
Payable to the Rs.
Claimants 8,24,480/-
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal stands
partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent
indicated herein above subject to the following conditions: -
(i) The respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the
compensation amount within 60 days from the date of this order,
failing which the execution can be taken out against him.
(ii) The claimant is directed to pay the requisite court fee, if
required in the present case.
(iii) On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw
the amount with accrued interest and costs, by filing a proper
application before the tribunal.
(iv) The record be sent back to the learned Tribunal within
three weeks from this day.
..5..
(v) As a consequence, interlocutory applications pending
consideration, if any, shall stand closed.
(vi) No order as to cost.
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
MSP
