[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Geeta Devi vs Ramjan Khan on 7 January, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:655
1 MA-1278-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 7 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 1278 of 2010
SMT.GEETA DEVI AND OTHERS
Versus
RAMJAN KHAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Smt.Meena Singhal - Advocate for appellants- claimants.
Shri B.K.Agrawal- Advocate for respondent No.3- Insurance
Company.
ORDER
This misc. appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 has been filed by appellants- claimants seeking enhancement of
compensation awarded by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Ambah, District Moren (in '' the Claims Tribunal''), in Claim Case No.108 of
2008.
2. The Claims Tribunal, by its award dated 12th March 2010, granted
a total compensation of Rs.12,58,797/- with interest at the rate of 7% per
annum from the date of the award. The appellants are aggrieved by the
quantum of compensation awarded and, therefore, have preferred this appeal,
praying for its enhancement.
3. In brief, the facts of the case are that deceased, Jaiveer Singh, was
a constable in Madhya Pradesh Police Department. The Claimants filed a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:655
2 MA-1278-2010
claim petition before the Claims Tribunal, inter alia, stating that the deceased
was a responsible and hardworking individual, known for his dedication to
both his duties and his family. The deceased was the sole breadwinner for his
family, and his untimely death resulted in severe financial hardship for the
appellants, who are his legal heirs. The appellants are wife; son, parents
and stepmother of deceased. At the time of his death, deceased was earning a
monthly salary of Rs.14,000/- which he used to support his family. It was
averred that on 4th February 2008, the deceased, along with his colleague
Vaijnath Singh Jatav, was traveling on a motorcycle to execute court
warrants as part of his official duties. While traveling on the AB Road, near
Nayagaon Gate, Subhashpura Police Station, deceased's motorcycle was
struck from behind by a tanker bearing registration number MH 04AL2588
(in short '' the offending vehicle). The tanker was being driven recklessly and
at high speed by respondent No.2- Vikram Singh, employed by respondent
No.1- Ramjan Khan (the owner of offending vehicle). As a result of the
collision, both the deceased and his colleague Vaijnath Singh Jatav died
instantaneously. The appellants, being the legal heirs of deceased, filed a
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking
compensation for the loss of life of the deceased. They filed the claim
against driver, owner, and insurer of tanker. In the claim petition, they
claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.48,47,000/- for the loss of
dependency, loss of love and affection, and other heads of damages.
4. After conducting proceedings, framing issues, and considering the
oral and documentary evidence presented by parties, the Claims Tribunal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:655
3 MA-1278-2010
granted a total compensation of Rs. 12,58,797/- along with interest at the rate
of 7% per annum from the date of impugned award.
5. The appellants have now approached this Court seeking an
enhancement in compensation amount.
6. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, it
is contended on behalf by learned Counsel for appellants that the income of
the deceased was not properly assessed by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims
Tribunal relied on a lower monthly income of deceased at Rs.10,280/-
instead of Rs.14,000/- which was actual salary of deceased. Monthly income
of Rs.14,000/- should have been considered for calculating the
compensation. The Claims Tribunal failed to consider the future prospects
of deceased. Since the deceased was a Government employee, he was likely
to receive promotions and increments in salary as per the Sixth Pay
Commission. The Claims Tribunal should have awarded compensation for
the loss of future prospects, and a sum of Rs.5 lac should have been added to
the compensation. The Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.60,000/- for the loss of
companionship, love, and affection is grossly inadequate. It is further
contended that a minimum of Rs. 1 lac should have been granted under this
head. Hence, the compensation amount be enhanced.
7.On the other hand, the learned counsel for Insurance Company has
supported the Award passed by the Claims Tribunal and submitted that the
compensation awarded was just and appropriate, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case. There is no ground to enhance the compensation,
and the appeal should be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:655
4 MA-1278-2010
8. In addition, the Insurance Company has filed a cross-objection
under Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC, challenging several findings of the
Claims Tribunal, including the findings on negligence, the multiplier applied,
and the income assessment. It is submitted that the accident was not solely
caused by negligence and that the Claims Tribunal erroneously applied the
multiplier of 16 instead of correct multiplier. It is submitted that the
appellants had filed a claim petition for compensation under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act on 04.02.2008 for Rs.48,47,000/-stating that deceased
Jaiveer Singh died in an accident involving tanker No.MH 04 AL 2588.
Insurance company, had also submitted a counterclaim, denying the incident
and citing breach of insurance conditions as a defence, denying liability for
damages. After consideration, the Claims Tribunal passed a final award of
Rs.12,58,797/- along with 7% annual interest in the case. The award in
question passed by Claims Tribunal is not maintainable as it is against the
law and against the record. The incident caused by the vehicle in question
and due to its speeding and negligence was not duly proved, and there was a
mistake in not understanding it. The income of deceased accepted by
claimants was not certified, and legal taxes were not taken into consideration
for the same. Thus, considering the income to be higher, a higher award was
given, which is not tenable. The age of deceased was more than what was
considered (34 years), and the multiplier of 16 has been applied more than
necessary. The dependency was also considered more by two-thirds. The
Claims Tribunal failed to consider the legal aspect that, where there is a
higher award, it is not mandatory to apply coefficient according to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:655
5 MA-1278-2010
schedule. Thus, it applied a higher coefficient and wrongly held appellants
Nos. 3 and 5 eligible for compensation. Rs.60,000/- has been wrongly and
excessively awarded for mental and physical suffering, affection, and
Rs.15,000/- for rituals and rent, which is not permissible. The Claims
Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence and has awarded an
excessive amount. Additionally, it has awarded interest at a higher rate.
Therefore, having submitted the Cross-Objection, it is humbly requested that
the same be taken on record and the award in question be kindly revoked.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellants objected to the cross-
objection filed by Insurance Company and prayed for its rejection. It is
submitted by learned counsel for appellants that the Insurance Company,
having satisfied with the award, is not entitled to file cross-objection, and
the cross-objection is not maintainable. In support of her contention, she has
placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Smt. Sonam Devi and Others
Vs. Rinki and Others, decided on 17th October 2023 in Misc. Appeal No.
4011 of 2023.
10. In reply, learned counsel for the Insurance Company by placing
reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Superintending Engineer and Others vs. B. Subba Reddy (1999) 4 SCC 423,
contended that cross-objection is nothing but an appeal, a cross-appeal at
that. It may be that the respondent wanted to give a quietus to the whole
litigation by accepting the judgment and decree or order even if it was partly
against his interest. When, however, the other party challenged the same by
filing an appeal, the statute gave the respondent a second chance to file an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:655
6 MA-1278-2010
appeal by way of cross-objection if he still felt aggrieved by the judgment
and decree or order.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. Subba Reddy(supra) has
held as under:-
"23. From the examination of these judgments and the provisions
Of Section 41 of the Act and Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code, in our
view, following principles emerge:
(1) Appeal is a substantive right. It is a creation of the statute.
Right to appeal does not exist unless it is specifically conferred,
(2) Cross objection is like an appeal. It has all the trappings of an
appeal. It is filed in the form of memorandum and the provisions
of Rule 1 of Order 41 of the Code, so far as these relate to the
form and contents of the memorandum of appeal apply to cross-
objection as well.
(3) Court fee is payable on cross-objection like that on the
memorandum of appeal. Provisions relating to appeals by indigent
person also apply to cross-objection.
(4) Everi Where the.appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for
default, cross-objection may nevertheless be heard and
determined.
(5) Respondent even though he has not appealed may support the
decree on any other ground but if wants to modify it, he has to file
cross-objection to the decree which objections he could have taken
earlier by filing an appeal. Time for filing objection which is in the
nature of appeal is extended by one month after service of notice
on him of the day fixed for hearing the appeal. This time could
also be extended by the Court like in appeal.
(6) Cross-objection is nothing but an appeal, a cross-appeal at that.
It may be that the respondent wanted to give quietus to whole
litigation by his accepting the judgment and decree or order even
if it was partly against his interest. When, however, the other party
challenged the same by filing an appeal statute gave the
respondent a second chance to file an appeal by way of cross-
objection if he still felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree or
order."
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully
considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.
Subba Reddy (supra), this Court is of the opinion that cross-objection filed
by the Insurance Company is maintainable. Even though the Insurance
Company has expressed satisfaction with the award, the law allows for a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:655
7 MA-1278-2010
cross-objection when a respondent feels aggrieved by certain aspects of the
judgment, especially when the appellant(s) has raised a challenge to the
award. Thus, the Insurance Company, having raised valid concerns
regarding the negligence findings, multiplier, and other aspects of award, is
well within its rights to file a cross-objection. This Court, therefore, allows
cross-objection of Insurance Company, taking into consideration the
submissions made, and principles of law established by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The cross-objection is hence taken on record.
13. The only question remains for consideration of enhancement of
compensation amount.
14 On perusal of documents (Ex.P1 to Ex.P3), it is clear that the gross
salary of deceased was Rs.10,282/- and his net salary was Rs.8,212/-. The
Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 8,537/-
after adding professional tax of Rs. 125/-
15. In the case of Sunil Sharma vs. Bachitar Singh and Others reported
in 2011 AIR SCW 2811, the Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to computation of
compensation of income of deceased, has held that house rent allowance,
CCA and medical allowance should be taken into consideration, so also
amount of EPF and GIS should be included in the income of deceased but
computer advance should not form part of monthly salary. Similar view has
been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raghuvir Singh Motolya
and Others vs. Hari Singh Malviya and Others reported in (2009) 15 SCC
363 wherein it was held that HRA and DA should have been included for
determining income of deceased.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:655
8 MA-1278-2010
16. The citation as relied upon by the Counsel for the appellants in the
case of Manorma Sinha and Another vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental
Insurance Company Limited and Another reported in 2025(4) TAC 353
(SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 12 has observed as under:-
"12. Now, the next question is whether allowances are to be added
to the salary for determining the multiplicand. In National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava & Ors.6 it was held that
"the term income has different connotations for different purposes.
A court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions
consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the
employee carries home at the end of the month but also other
perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family". In
Vijay Kumar Rastogi v. Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport
Corporation7 a three-Judge Bench of this court noticing earlier
decisions on the point observed that "the income should include
those benefits, either in terms of money or See: Sarla Verma &
Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121,
paragraph 42, affirmed in National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, paragraph 59.6. (2008)
2 SCC 763, paragraph 9 2018 SCC OnLine SC 193 paragraph 11
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 19878/2022 otherwise, which are
taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of income tax
or professional tax, although some elements thereof may not be
taxable due to exemption conferred thereupon under the statute."
Following the decision in Vijay Kumar Rastogi (supra) in
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nalini & Ors.8 it was held by
this Court that the emoluments and the benefits accruing to the
deceased under various heads for the purposes of computation of
loss of income, ought to be included irrespective of whether they
are taxable or not. Thus, in our view, the High Court erred in
excluding the allowances from the computation to arrive at the
multiplicand. Hence, the total monthly income was rightly
computed by the Tribunal at Rs.53,367."
17. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
above cited cases, on perusal of impugned record of the Claims Tribunal, it
is found that the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in holding the
monthly income of deceased at Rs. 8537/- per month whereas the monthly
income of deceased is Rs.10,282/-. The deceased was working in Madhya
Pradesh Police Department. His date of birth is 05-06-1966 whereas the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:655
9 MA-1278-2010
alleged accident was happened on 04-02-2008, therefore, his age is more
than 41 years i.e. in between 41 to 45 years, therefore, the multiplier of 14
should be applied in stead of multiplier of 16. Accordingly, the claimants
are entitled to get the following compensation amount:-
Head Amount (Rs.)
Income (Rs. 10,282 X 13 months) 1,33,666/-
Deduction of Professional Tax (2,500)
Net Income After Deduction 1,31,166/-
Deduction for 3/4th (Dependency) (98,374/-)
Multiplier (14) 13,77,236/-
Future Prospects @ 30% 4,13,091/-
Total (Loss of Dependency) 17,90,406/-
Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000 X 4) 1,60,000/-
Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses 30,000/-
Total Compensation 19,80,406/-
18. Thus, just and proper amount of compensation is
Rs.19,80,406/-against the award of the Claims Tribunal of Rs.12,58,797/-
Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to additional sum of Rs.7,21,609/-
over and above the amount, which has been awarded by the Claims
Tribunal.
19. In the result, the misc. appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount by a sum of Rs.7,21,609/- and the enhanced amount
shall carry interest from the date of payment of Court fees by the appellants
in the present appeal (as per judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this
Court (Jabalpur Bench) relied by learned Counsel for the Insurance
Company in the case of Smt. Munni Bai and Others vs. Mujaffar Hussain and
Another, decided on 11th of December, 2023 passed in MA No. 4544 of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:655
10 MA-1278-2010
2019). The said enhanced 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 Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. If the enhanced amount of
compensation is in excess to the valuation in the misc. appeal, the difference
of 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 and thereafter, the Registry shall issue the certified copy
of the order passed today.
20. The instant misc. appeal stands disposed of to the extent indicated
hereinabove.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
