[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Malviya vs Abhishek Rai on 16 January, 2026
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4277
1 MA-449-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 16 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 449 of 2018
RAJESH MALVIYA
Versus
ABHISHEK RAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinit Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the appellant.
Service of notice on respondent No.1 is dispensed with.
Smt. Amrit Kaur Ruprah - Advocate for respondent no.2-insurance
company.
Heard on : 12.01.2026
Pronounced on : 16.01.2026.
ORDER
This appeal has been preferred by appellant/claimant for seeking enhancement of
compensation amount by Rs.2,00,000/- in reference of award dated 28.11.2017
passed in MVC No.106/2013 by Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short, "the Tribunal"). Under the impugned award, the
appellant/claimant was awarded a compensation amount of Rs.4,15,283/- along
with interest and cost.
2. The facts in brief are that appellant Rajesh Malviya was travelling in a
Mahindra Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no.MP-04-MV-7777, which was
driven rashly and negligently by its driver and the vehicle turned turtle. The
appellant sustained injuries in the accident and also the permanent disability.
3. The learned Tribunal gave a finding that permanent disability was suffered by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4277
2 MA-449-2018
appellant on account of which his earning capacity was reduced by 20%. The
learned Tribunal, after taking into account the income, age, percentage of
disability, etc., assessed the amount of compensation at Rs.4,15,283/- and holding
that there was no breach of insurance policy allowed the claim to that extent
against all respondents together with interest compound and cost.
4. The appellant has preferred this miscellaneous appeal on the quantum and has
claimed that the permanent disability should have been assessed at 50%. It was
also submitted that the income of appellant was wrongly assessed and the medical
expenses borne by him were also ignored. A request was accordingly made to
enhance the compensation amount by Rs.2,00,000/-.
5. The insurance company (respondent no.2) has contested this appeal claiming
that no enhancement is warranted in the compensation amount.
6. Counsel for both the parties have been heard and the record of Claims
Tribunal has been perused.
7. The award under challenge reveals that in paragraphs no.26 to 34 the learned
Tribunal assessed the compensation for permanent disability of appellant to
Rs.4,15,283/-. The appellant had claimed that he was earning Rs.40,000/- per
month from his business but learned Tribunal observed that appellant failed to
prove that he was running a business and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month from
it. Instead, the learned Tribunal assessed the notional income of appellant as an
"unskilled worker" and approximated it to Rs.42,000/- per annum. The appellant
has challenged this quantification of his income and has argued that in the month
of March, 2013, when the accident occurred, the minimum wage of an "unskilled
worker" was Rs.5,270/- per month. It is further submitted that his age has been
considered around 40 years at the time of accident by the learned Tribunal,
therefore he was also entitled to future prospects on this income @ 40%.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4277
3 MA-449-2018
8. The submissions made by the learned counsel for appellant were countered by
respondent-insurance company. The rival submissions have been considered and
this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal was in error in assessing the
notional income at Rs.42,000/- per annum while under the Minimum Wages Act
the minimum wage of an "unskilled worker" was Rs.5,270/- per month during the
period when accident occurred. In the light of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (AIR
2017 SC 5157), the self-employed appellant was also entitled for future prospects
that need to be calculated at 40% of the income. Therefore, both these arguments
submitted by the appellant are acceptable but raising the percentage of permanent
disability has no logical reason. Accordingly, compensation is re-calculated in
terms of applicable minimum wages. The calculation is hereunder:
Assessed by the Claims Modified by this
S.No. Head
Tribunal Court
Rs. 5,270/- per
1 Assessed income Rs.3,500/- per month
month
2. Annual income Rs.42,000/- Rs.63,240/-
Future Prospects for a self employed person of
5. -- 40%
age around 40
Total annual income along with future
6. -- 88536/-
prospects
Rs.2,28,283/-
7. Medical expenses Rs.2,28,283/-
8. Loss of income for six months Rs.21,000/- Rs.31,620/-
88536x15x20%
Loss of earning capacity on account of 20%
9. Rs.1,26,000/- =
permanent disability
Rs.2,65,608/-
10. Towards pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-
11. Expenses of attendant Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/-
12. Towards transportation Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/-
13. Towards special diet Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/-
14. Total Rs.4,15,283/- Rs.5,65,511/-
9. Accordingly, this Court sums up its finding and allow this appeal for a total
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4277
4 MA-449-2018
compensation amount of Rs.5,65,511/-. The learned Tribunal has already awarded
Rs.4,15,283/- to the appellant, therefore appellant shall be entitled to additional
sum of Rs.1,50,228/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing
of claim petition i.e. 29.07.2013. The enhanced amount shall be paid to the
appellant in terms of the directions of learned Tribunal given under the award.
10. The appeal is accordingly disposed of .
11. Let the record of claims Tribunal be send back along with a copy of this order
for necessary compliance.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
skt
