[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hanif Khan vs Rajasthan Rajya Parivaha Nigam on 16 January, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2157
1 MA-641-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 16th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 641 of 2013
HANIF KHAN
Versus
RAJASTHAN RAJYA PARIVAHA NIGAM AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dharmendra Rishishwar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Jitendra Tyagi- Advocate for respondent No.1.
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant
under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , being aggrieved by
the Award dated 16.02.2013 passed by Second Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Morena (M.P.) (in short "the Claims Tribunal") in Claim
Case No.187/2011 on account of inadequacy of compensation amount and
seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. 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
this regard are not in question.
3. As per the findings of the Claims Tribunal, the appellant/claimant
sustained permanent disability due to injuries suffered in the motor accident. The
Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,25,000/- along with
interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2157
2 MA-641-2013
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has preferred the present appeal on the
ground that the Claims Tribunal has committed a manifest error in assessing the
income of the claimant which is on lower side. It is further submitted that at
the time of accident, claimant used to earn a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-
by doing labour work. Therefore, his income must be assessed as per the
Minimum Wages Act, but Claims Tribunal assessed the income of deceased
only to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month. It is further contended that the
Claims Tribunal committed error in not awarding reasonable compensation
under the head future prospects. Hence, it is prayed that a reasonable and just
amount of compensation be awarded to the claimant by enhancing the
impugned Award.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported
the impugned Award and submitted that the Claims Tribunal has rightly
assessed the compensation on the basis of the evidence available on record. It
is contended that the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
Claims Tribunal.
7. From perusal of evidence of claimant, it is found that claimant was
unable to produce any substantial document in regard to his income. However,
upon overall consideration, it is found that the income assessed by the
Claims Tribunal is on the lower side. In view of the judgments in 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2157
3 MA-641-2013
ACC 134, when documentary proof of income is lacking, income is to be
assessed as per the minimum wages applicable and, therefore, monthly
income of claimant is to be assessed as Rs.4,145/- under the unskilled
category at the time of alleged accident.
8. As regards loss of income including future prospects, in the light of
judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ 2700 ,
the claimant is entitled for loss of income including future prospects of 40%
and 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 claimant is to be taken into account, multiplier of 15 be
applied.
9. Accordingly, appellant-claimant is entitled to get compensation
under the following heads:-
HEAD AMOUNT
Income Rs.4,145 X12= 49,740/-
Future Prospects@40% Rs.69,636/-
Permanent Disability @45% Rs.31,336/-
Multiplier 15 Rs.4,70,040/-
Medical bills Rs.35,000/-
Transportation & attendant,
Rs.5,800/-
special diet
Pain & Suffering Rs.25,000/-
Total Compensation = Rs.5,35,840/-
10. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant
case is Rs.5,35,840/- as against the Award of the Claims Tribunal of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2157
4 MA-641-2013
Rs.3,25,000/-. Accordingly, the appellant/claimant is entitled to an additional
sum of Rs.2,10,840/- over and above the amount, which has been awarded
by the Claims Tribunal.
11. In the result, this miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed, by
enhancing the compensation amount by a sum of Rs.2,10,840/-. The
enhanced amount shall carry interest as fixed by the learned Claims Tribunal
from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 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.
12. If the enhanced amount of compensation is in excess to the
valuation of appeal, the difference of the Court fee (if not already paid) shall
be deposited by the appellant-claimant within a period of one month and
proof thereof, shall be submitted before the Registry. Thereafter, the Registry
shall issue the certified copy of the order passed today.
13. In view of the above, miscellaneous appeal filed by the
appellants/claimants stands disposed of.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
*VJ*
