[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Chhoti Baghle vs Manoj Singh Yadav on 15 April, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12037
1 MA-233-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 15th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 233 of 2022
SMT. CHHOTI BAGHLE AND OTHERS
Versus
MANOJ SINGH YADAV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ramesh Prasad Gupta - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Naresh Singh Tomar- Advocate for respondent No.3.
ORDER
Heard on IA No.208/2022, an application moved on behalf of
appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the
application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the instant appeal is hereby
condoned.
3. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the
appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
being aggrieved by the Award dated 16.09.2021 passed by X Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, District- Gwalior (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as "the
Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No.1090/2018, on the ground of
inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement thereof.
4. The date of accident, issue of negligence and the liability of the
respondents are not in dispute. The findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12037
2 MA-233-2022
this regard are not in question.
5. As per the findings of the Claims Tribunal, due to death of Rajbahadur
Baghel in the motor accident, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the
tune of Rs.12,48,100/- along with interest from the date of filing of the claim
petition till realization.
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellants/claimants
have preferred this appeal on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal
passed the impugned award without proper appreciation of law. It is
contended that the compensation awarded is on the lower side. The oral and
documentary evidence produced by the appellants clearly establishes that
prior to the accident, the deceased was aged only 27 years was engaged in a
work of crusher operating. However, the learned Claims Tribunal failed to
consider these aspects and assessed the income of the deceased only to the
tune of Rs. 5,500/- per month, which is extremely low. Despite this, the
Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of only Rs.12,48,100/- under
all heads, which is grossly inadequate. It is further submitted that income of
the deceased must be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act of an unskilled
labour at the time of accident. It is further contended that Claims Tribunal
has committed error in not awarding reasonable amount of compensation in
other conventional heads. Hence, it is prayed that reasonable amount of
compensation may be awarded to the claimants.
7. On the other hand, learned counsels for the Insurance Company
supported the impugned award and prayed for rejection of the appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12037
3 MA-233-2022
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. After hearing counsel for the parties, it is found that the claimants have
utterly failed to adduce any substantial evidence in regard to income of the
deceased. Hence, this Court finds it appropriate to assess the income of the
deceased as an unskilled person in view of the law laid down in the cases
of Sukhdevi v. Devendra Kumar , ILR 2014 MP 172; Kanwar Devi v. Bansal
Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182; and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Renu Devi ,
(2008) 3 ACC 134 in which it is held that when documentary proof of
income is lacking, income is to be assessed as per the minimum wages
applicable. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the just and proper
amount of the income of the deceased as an unskilled person as per
Minimum Wages Act in the present case is Rs.7,325/- per month.
10. As regard to loss of income including future prospects, in the light of
judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ 2700 , the
claimants are entitled for loss of income including future prospects. As per Pranay
Sethi (supra), future prospects @ 40% has rightly been assessed by the Claims
Tribunal. Further, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla
Verma and ors. Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6
SCC 121 , even if age of the deceased is to be taken into account, multiplier of
17 has rightly been assessed by the Claims Tribunal. Claimants 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. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal up to this
extent be set aside and the reasonable amount of compensation be awarded.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12037
4 MA-233-2022
11. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive
compensation under the following heads:-
HEAD AMOUNT
Income Rs.7,325 x 12= 87,900/- p.a.
Future Prospects@ 40% Rs.1,23,060/-
After deducting Dependency 1/4 Rs.92,295/-
Multiplier 17 Rs.15,69,015/-
Other Heads:-
Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000 X = 1,60,000/-
Loss of Estate and funeral expenses Rs.30,000/-
Total Compensation = Rs.17,59,015/-
12. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation payable in the present
case comes to Rs.17,59,015/- as against the sum of Rs.12,48,100/- awarded by
the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are held
entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.5,10,915/- over and above the
amount already awarded by the Tribunal.
13. In the result, miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. The impugned
award is modified, and the compensation is enhanced by a sum
of Rs.5,10,915/-. The aforesaid enhanced amount shall carry interest as fixed
by Claims Tribunal from the date of deposit of Court fees by the appellants
in the present appeal. The said amount be paid within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Rest of
conditions as imposed by learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.
14 . In case the enhanced compensation exceeds the valuation of the appeal,
the appellants shall deposit the differential Court fee (if not already paid) within a
period of one month from today and furnish proof of such payment before the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12037
5 MA-233-2022
Registry. Upon compliance, the Registry shall issue the certified copy of this
order.
15. In view of the foregoing, the miscellaneous appeal stands partly
allowed and disposed of.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
*VJ*
