[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anis Kha vs Chetan Chavre on 4 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3593
1 MA-7117-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 4 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 7117 of 2024
ANIS KHA AND OTHERS
Versus
CHETAN CHAVRE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Priya Dubey on behalf of Shri Sachin Parmar, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Mayank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent [R-3].
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No. 10944/024 which is an application for condonation of
delay of 356 days.
02. Application has been opposed by counsel for the Insurance Company.
03. For the reasons stated therein, I.A. is allowed. Delay is condoned.
04. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that since there is no dispute
with regard to liability, therefore, even though she has not filed application for
dispensing with service on respondents No. 1 & 2, but the service on them is
dispensed with as per settled principles of law since respondents No. 1 & 2 were
not contesting party before the learned Claims Tribunal and the prayer is not
opposed by the other side.
05. In view of the above, service on respondents No. 1 & 2 are dispensed
with.
06. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award dated 30.06.2023 in Claim
Case No. 34/2022 (Anees Khan etc. vs. Chetan Chavre & Anr.), this appeal has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3593
2 MA-7117-2024
been preferred under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Learned Claims
Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 20,06,920/- with interest @ 6% from the
date of filing of claim petition.
0 7 . Learned counsel for the appellants/survivors of the deceased Shafik
Khan submits that income of the deceased has not been properly assessed. He was
an Electrician and repairing Cooler, Freeze etc. and his income should have been
assessed on the parameters of skilled labourer on the date of the accident i.e.
11.08.2021. Accordingly, the award needs enhancement by interfering by way of
this Misc. Appeal.
08. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company opposes the prayer on the
ground that even though evidence has been led with regard to the fact that the
deceased was Electrician, but no sufficient evidence was there, but anyhow his
income can be assessed on the basis that he was a semi-skilled labour. Under all
other heads, proper amount has been awarded and, therefore, no enhancement is
required in the awarded amount and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
09. Heard and considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
1 0 . The only dispute is with regard to income of the deceased. From
perusal of the evidence on record, it is found that he was doing work of
Electrician, therefore, even if he was not a trained Electrician, he may be treated as
semi-skilled labour and according to this as per Circular issued by the Labour
Department of Statement of M.P. under Minimum Wages Act, income comes to
Rs.9,557/-. On this amount, 40% in the head of Future Prospects will also be
added. Looking to the dependents/survivors, 1/4th is to be deducted in the head of
personal expenses and looking to the age of the deceased 35 years, multiplier of
16 is applied. In the head of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3593
3 MA-7117-2024
estate, the amount awarded is sufficient, therefore, it is maintained. Hence, just
and proper amount of compensation will be computed as under:-
Rs.9557/- per month + Rs.3823/- (40% F.P.) =
Rs.13,380/- x 12 = Rs.1,60,560/- - Rs.40,140/- (1/4th
Dependency
personal expenses) =Rs.1,20,420/- x 16 (Multiplier) =
Rs.19,26,720/-
Consortium Rs.44,000/- x 5 =Rs.2,20,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.16,500/-
Funeral
Rs.16,500/-
expenses
Total Rs.21,79,720/-
less MACT
Rs.20,06,920/-
award
Enhanced
Rs.1,72,800/-
amount
11. Accordingly, claimants are entitled to an additional sum
o f Rs.1,72,800/- over and above the amount which has been awarded by the
Tribunal.
12. The appeal is valued as Rs.2,00,000/- and court fees has also been
paid, therefore, there is no question of deficit of court fee. The other terms and
conditions of the original impugned award shall remain intact.
13. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and disposed of to the extent herein
above indicated.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
soumya
