[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Mamta And 5 Ors. vs Manager Rajasthan Rajya Path Pariwahan ... on 20 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1724
1 MA-533-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 20 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 533 of 2012
RAJASTHAN RAJYA PARIWAHAN NIGAM
Versus
SMT. MAMTA AND 6 ORS.
Appearance:
Shri R.N. Dave - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Malviya - Advocate on behalf of Shri Romil Malpani -
Advocate for the claimants/respondents.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 982 of 2013
SMT.MAMTA AND 5 ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
MANAGER RAJASTHAN RAJYA PATH PARIWAHAN NIGAM AND ANR.
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Malviya - Advocate on behalf of Shri Romil Malpani -
Advocate for the appellants.
Shri R.N.Dave- Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
As these appeals arise out of the same award they are being heard
analogously and disposed off by this common order.
2. These appeals are filed against the award dated 17.01.2012 passed by
XII Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in claim case no.153/2009
whereby the claim petition filed on behalf of the survivors of the deceased Satish
Choudhary has been partly allowed by awarding compensation amount of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1724
2 MA-533-2012
Rs.10,20,500/- along with interest @6% from the date of filing of the claim
petition i.e.23.12.2009.
3. As per the claimants' case on 14.09.2009 the deceased Satish
Choudhary was riding his motorcycle and going from Sukhliya Chouraha towards
Maruti Nagar Chouraha and when he reached Maruti Chouraha a bus of Rajasthan
State Road Transportation bearing registration no.RJ-17-P-0657 driven rashly and
negligently by its driver collided with the motorcycle due to which the deceased
fell down on the ground resulting in serious injuries on his head, both the limbs
and other vital parts of the body and due to sustaining injuries the deceased died
on the spot. The incident was report to the Police Station Hiranagar and case was
registered against respondent no.2 and he was arrested.
4. The survivors/claimants/appellants in M.A.No.982/2013 filed claim
case for award of just and proper compensation due to untimely and sudden death
of deceased Satish Choudhary. Rajasthan State Road Transportation also filed
M.A.No.533/2012 specifically on the ground that while passing the award the
income tax has not been deducted and income is also on the higher side.
5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Rajasthan Rajya Pariwahan Nigam
raised both of the aforesaid contentions in their submissions. He submits that the
award passed by the Claims Tribunal is on the higher side therefore prays for
reduction of the award amount after deducting income tax amount also and he
opposes the stand taken by the claimants for enhancement of the award amount.
6. Counsel for the claimants/appellants in M.A.No.982/2013 submits that
age of the deceased has been taken as 35 years on the date of incident which is not
in dispute. The income has been assessed as Rs.1 lakh per annum which is
mentioned in para 10 of the award is also not in dispute. The learned Claims
Tribunal failed to comply with the directions contained in paras 30, 31 and 32 in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1724
3 MA-533-2012
the case of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009)
6 SCC 121 which is approved by the Constitutional Bench judgment in the case
of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680 and deduction in the head of personal expenses is taken as
1/3rd wherein looking to the number of dependents which is shown as 6 in
number, should have been 1/4th. He further submits that no amount has been
awarded in the head of future prospects which should be 40% of the income as per
directions contained in para 59.4 in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) . He further
submits that in the head of loss of consortium no amount has been awarded while
claimants are wife, two sons, mother and father and are entitled for Rs.40,000/-
each which comes to Rs.2 lakhs. In the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate
meagre amount has been awarded which is against the observations contained in
the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) which should be Rs.15,000/- each in both heads.
On these contentions, he prays for dismissing the appeal filed by the Rajasthan
Rajya Pariwahan Nigam and prays for enhancement of the amount as argued by
him.
7. Heard and considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused
the record.
8. It is true that while awarding compensation amount as per slab, 10%-
20% is deducted for income tax liability, but if the amount of income tax has not
been deducted, it is the duty of the persons who have availed the award to deposit
the income tax, if they are coming under liability to pay income tax. Therefore,
objections raised on behalf of the Rajasthan Rajya Pariwahan Nigam do not
impress this Court. Hence, the contention is repelled and no substance is found in
the appeal filed on behalf of the Rajasthan Rajya Pariwahan Nigam. From perusal
of the award it is apparent that the age of the deceased Satish Choudhary has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1724
4 MA-533-2012
assessed as 35 years which is not in dispute. In para 10 of the award income of
Rs.1 lakh has been assessed which has also not been disputed. Deduction in
personal expenses has been taken as 1/3rd by the Tribunal which should be 1/4th
looking to the number of dependents which are 6 in number. As per para 59.4 in
the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) 40% of the income is to be added in the head of
future prospects as income of the deceased has been assessed as guess work and he
was not having any permanent job. In the head of consortium also as per directions
contained in Pranay Sethi (Surpa) each of the dependent including wife, sons,
daughters and parents father and mother are entitled for consortium amount as
held in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru
Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 which has been approved by the
three judges Bench in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v.
Satinder Kaur Alias Satwinder Kaur and Others reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780 .
Therefore, an amount of Rs.40,000/- from claimants no.1 to 5 i.e wife, two sons
and father and mother are to be awarded which comes to Rs.2 lakhs. In the head of
funeral expenses and loss of estate Rs.15,000/- is to be awarded. The just and
proper amount of compensation will be computed as under:-
Rs.1,00,000 less 1/4th(Rs.25,000)=Rs.75,000/- +40%
Dependency
(FP) Rs.30,000/- = Rs.1,05,000/- x 15= Rs.15,75,000/-
Consortium Rs.40,000/- x 5 =Rs.2,00,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Funeral
Rs.15,000/-
expenses
Total Rs.18,05,000/-
less MACT
Rs.10,20,500/-
award
Enhanced
Rs.7,84,500/-
amount
9. Accordingly, claimants in (M.A.No.982/2013) are entitled to an
additional sum of Rs.7,84,500/- over and above the amount which has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1724
5 MA-533-2012
awarded by the Tribunal.
10. The appeal (M.A.No.982/2013) is valued as Rs.5,00,000/- and for the
rest of the amount the claimants will pay the requisite Court fees within a period of
one month and only thereafter enhanced amount will be disbursed.
11. Resultantly, the appeal (M.A.No.533/2012) filed by the Rajasthan
Rajya Pariwahan Nigam is dismissed and the appeal (M.A.No.982/2013) filed by
the claimants is allowed to the extent as indicated herein above . The other terms
and conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RJ
