The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Jamna Bai on 11 February, 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4349

1 MA-6683-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 11th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 6683 of 2019
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. JAMNA BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Sankhala - Government Advocate for the appellants/State
Shri Vishal Sharma - Advocate for the respondents.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 6682 of 2019
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. USHA BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Sankhala - Government Advocate for the
appellants/State
Shri Vishal Sharma - Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER

These appeals are arising out of the common award dated 30.03.2019 passed in claim case nos.105/2017 and 106/2017 are heard analogously and disposed of by this common order.

2. The Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.17,53,360/- to the survivors of deceased Dharmendra and Rs.7,72,000/- to the survivors of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4349

2 MA-6683-2019 deceased Totaram with interest @7% per annum.

3. The claimants' case in nutshell is that on 07.06.2016 deceased Dharmendra and deceased Totaram as pillion were going from Kasrawad towards their house Nimgul and when they reached nearby Ratrani Dhaba, an Eicher bearing No.CPZD-8552 driven by appellant no.3 rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle due to which both the deceased fell down on the road along with motorcycle and suffered grievous injuries and they were taken to Primary Health Centre Kasrawad where both were declared dead. The incident was reported to the police station and thereafter the claimant survivors oft he deceased persons filed claim petitions for Rs.32 lakhs and 24 lakhs respectively.

4. Learned Government Advocate for the appellants/State submits

that the offending vehicle No. CPZD-8552 was stationary at the time of accident and it was taken one side and helper Dilip was filling water in radiator and this vehicle has not collided with the motorcycle as alleged in the FIR Ex.P-2. A report Ex.D-1 was filed before police station Kasrawad but no action was taken on this report therefore, when the offending vehicle No. CPZD-8552 was not moving or driven rashly and negligently, hence, no question of fastening liability on the State arises. On these grounds, he prays for exonerating the State from discharging the liability of paying the award amount in favour of the survivors of the deceased. He further opposed the cross objection filed by the claimants in M.A.No.6682/2019 by submitting that the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the award amount properly therefore, needs no enhancement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4349

3 MA-6683-2019

5. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants in M.A.No.6682/2019 submits that the income of the deceased has not been assessed properly. The income on the basis of circular issued under the Minimum Wages Act by the Labour Department of Government of M.P. prevailing on the date of incident i.e. 07.06.2016 come to Rs.6,850/- whereas Claims Tribunal has assessed the income as Rs.4,500 therefore prays for enhancement of the income and looking to the age of the deceased Totaram, which was 50 years, 25% towards future prospects should be added to the income and similarly the survivors should be awarded consortium amount and in the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate, amount be awarded. On these submissions prays for enhancement of the award amount.

6. Heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From perusal of the record and FIR Ex.P-2, it is apparent that accident took place while the offending vehicle CPZD-8552 was driven rashly and negligently by appellant no.3 has been arraigned as accused. No action has been taken on Ex.D-1 which has been relied upon by the State. It cannot be imagined that if State files any FIR/complaint and it has any substance, even then no action is taken therefore, this document Ex.D-1 is of no helf to the appellants/State. On the basis of the evidence it is amply proved that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle CPZD-8552, government vehicle as inferred by the learned Claims Tribunal. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the

State are repelled.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4349

4 MA-6683-2019

8. As per income of the deceased Totaram is concerned in M.A.No.6682/2019, the age of the deceased was 50 years and income has been assessed by the Claims Tribunal is Rs.4,500/-, whereas on the date of accident i.e.07.06.2016, as per prevailing circular the income should have been assessed as Rs.6,850/-

9. It is well settled that the Apex Court in catena of judgments

have made it clear that where income of the deceased/victim is not established by way of cogent evidence, then it should be taken on the basis of circular issued under Minimum Wages Act,1948 by the Labour Department of Government of M.P. The judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sapna and others Vs. Mangilal and another, 2021 ACJ 957 in paras 14 to 16 has held as under:-

"14. Coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Bhim Singh vs. Jagmelsingh in MA No.5350 of 2022 dated 07th July, 2023, Shankar and Others vs Dinesh and Others in MA No.2057 of 2021 dated 08th September, 2023 and Sohanlal and Others vs. Noorasingh and Others in MA No.7014 of 2019 dated 22.08.2023 has also determined income on the basis of minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

15. Thus, from principles laid down in above cases, it is evident that Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Coordinate Benches of this Court has consistently determined the income of the deceased/applicant on the basis of Minimum Wages duly notified under Minimum Wages Act.

16. It is correct that as per section 3 & other provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum wages thereunder are fixed & notified for employees employed in an employment specified in the Act, i.e. in respect of scheduled employment under the Act. But, in view of principles laid down in decisions referred to in preceding paras, in this court‟s considered opinion, in absence of other evidence on record, to

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4349

5 MA-6683-2019 obviate uncertainty & for sake of reasonable uniformity & consistency, it would be just & proper to apply yardstick of Minimum Wages duly notified under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act."

10. Accordingly, in cross objection in M.A.No.6682/2019 income taken by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side which should be Rs.6,850/- and in the head of future prospects as per the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 in para 59.4, future prospect of 25% should be added to the income and by taking personal expenses as 1/5th and applying multiplier of 13 along with consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate, this Court is of the view that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side which deserves to be enhanced as under in the cross objection filed in M.A.No.6682/2019:-

Rs.6,850/- + Rs.1,712/- (25% FP) =Rs.8,562/- p.m. less Loss of Rs.1,712/- (1/5th personal expenses)=Rs6,850/- x 12 Dependency = Rs.82,200/-p.a. x 13 (multiplier) = Rs.10,68,600/- Consortium Rs.40,000/- x 7 =Rs.2,80,000/- Funeral Rs.15,000/-

Expenses Loss of Rs.15,000/-

estate Total Rs.13,78,600/-

Amount MACT Rs.7,72,000/-

award Enhanced Rs.6,06,600/-

amount

11. Accordingly, the claimants/respondents in M.A.No.6682/2019 are entitled to an additional sum of Rs.6,06,600/-over and above the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4349

6 MA-6683-2019

12. The cross objection is valued as Rs.2,50,000/- and for the rest of the amount the claimants/respondents will pay the requisite Court fees within a period of 30 days from today and only thereafter enhanced amount will be disbursed. It is made clear, in case the court fees is not paid within the stipulated period, the claimants will not be entitled for claiming interest on the enhanced amount beyond 30 days' period.

13. Resultantly, the appeals (M.A.No.6683/2019 and M.A.No.6682/2019) filed by the appellants/State are dismissed and the cross objection filed in M.A.No.6682/2019 by the claimants/respondents is allowed to the extent as indicated herein above. The other terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

Let a copy of this order be kept in the connected appeal also.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE