[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devnarayan@Bablu vs Bharat Singh on 23 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2154
1 MA-281-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 23rd OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 281 of 2016
DEVNARAYAN@BABLU AND OTHERS
Versus
BHARAT SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sourabh Neema - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Sudhir Dandwate - Advocate for the respondent No. 3/insurance
company.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 280 of 2016
DEVNARAYAN @ BABLU AND OTHERS
Versus
BHARAT SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sourabh Neema - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Sudhir Dandwate - Advocate for the respondent/insurance
company.
ORDER
These Miscellaneous Appeals have been preferred by the claimants
(appellants herein) against the impugned award dated 23.11.2015 passed in
Claim Case No. 254/2011 (M.A. No. 281/2016) and Claim Case No.
255/2011 (M.A. No. 280/2016) whereby an award of Rs.32,55,000/- with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2154
2 MA-281-2016
interest 6% from the date of filing of claim petition has been awarded in
Claim Case No. 254/2011 and in Claim Case No. 255/2011, an award of Rs.
3,25,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of claim petition has
been awarded.
2. It is not in dispute that deceased wife Puja w/o Devnarayan and her
daughter Archita, aged about 9 years passed away on 12.01.2011 when they
were travelling in Honda Activa M.P.09-M.H.-6419 and met with an
accident by Truck No.M.P.09-G.E.-8320 which was driven rashly and
negligently.
3 . In M.A. No. 281/2016, learned counsel for the appellants submits
that the deceased wife Puja, aged about 32 years and was having survivor
husband and one son, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal has erred in
deducting 1/2nd of income in personal expenses which should have been
1/3rd and looking to the age directions contained in para 59.4 of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 680, 40% of
the income should have been added and he fairly submits that in the head of
consortium, Rs.1 Lac has been awarded which should be Rs.80,000/- as per
directions contained in Pranay Sethi (Supra). He further submits that in the
head of funeral expenses and loss of estate, only Rs.15,000/- has been
awarded. On these contentions, he prays for recomputing just and proper
compensation and accordingly for enhancement of compensation.
4 . To buttress his points, learned counsel for the appellants relied
upon the para 7 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Malakappa &
Ors. vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2025 ACJ Page
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2154
3 MA-281-2016
1109, para 14 & 15 of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Birendra & Ors. 2020 ACJ Page 759 , Para 19 & 20 of the judgment passed
i n Balwinder Singh vs. Rohtak District Trans. Coop. Society Ltd. & Ors.
2024 A.C.J. Page 1765 , Para 3, 5 & 7 of the judgment passed in Dr.
Pramodchandra & Ors. vs. Ashwani & Ors. 2007 A.C.J. Page 959 and para
5, 6 of the judgment passed in Meena Devi vs. Gopiram Pathak 2010 ACJ
Page 2359.
5 . In M.A. No. 280/2016, learned counsel for the appellants submits
that minor daughter Archita, aged about 9 years met with an untimely death
in the aforesaid accident. Learned Claims Tribunal has taken notional
income of Rs.30,000/- per year and accordingly the computation has been
done which is not as per the observations in the latest Supreme Court
judgment. For which he has relied upon para-20 of the judgment passed in
the case of Kajal vs. Jagdish & Ors. 2020 ACJ Page 1042 , Para 14 of the
judgment passed in the case of Karuna Parmar vs. Prakash Sinha & Ors.
2025 ACJ Page 1624 and also para 9 of the judgment passed in Hitesh
Nagjibhai Patel vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabri 2025 TAC Page 55 . Relying
upon the said judgments, learned counsel submits that Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that income on the death of minor child should be taken as income
of skilled labour according to the prevailing circulars in respective states
issued from Labour Department under Minimum Wages Act. On these
submissions, he submits that in the present case, death occurred on
12.01.2011 and on that date vide Circular issued under Minimum Wages Act
should be Rs.4,425/- was the minimum wage per month of a skilled labour.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2154
4 MA-281-2016
He further submits that 40% of the income should be increased in the head
of future prospects as per directions contained in para 59.4 in the case of
Pranay Sethi (Supra). The learned Claims Tribunal has erred in applying the
multiplier of 16 instead of 18 which should be applicable in the light of
judgment delivered in para-42 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in
Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6
SCC 121. He further submits and not opposed by counsel for the
respondent/insurance company that since minor was bachelor, therefore, 1/2
of the income will be deducted in the head of personal expenses as per
directions contained in para 31 of Sarla Verma (Smt) (supra).
6 . In M.A. No. 281/2016, learned counsel for the
respondent/insurance company has vehemently opposed the prayer raised by
counsel for the appellants on the ground that in para-39 of the impugned
award, the judgment passed in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs.
Sanjeev Jain 2004 ACJ (1) Page 587 has been relied upon and submits that
when husband and wife are earning members, then 50% of the income will
be deducted in the head of personal expenses and taking into consideration
the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal has rightly deducted the income of the
deceased, therefore, no interference is called for in this head. He further
submits that the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal in this case
is just and proper needs no interference and prays for dismissal of the
appeal.
7 . In M.A. No. 280/2016, learned counsel for the
respondent/insurance company submits that the learned trial Court has taken
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2154
5 MA-281-2016
the view which was prevalent at the time of passing of award, but he fairly
admits that presently there are judgments passed by the Apex Court to the
effect that income of the deceased minor child should be taken as income of
the skilled labour on the death with addition of 40% in the head of future
prospects and other conventional heads.
8 . Heard and considered the rival submissions and perused the
record.
9. In M.A. No. 281/2016, though the learned Claims Tribunal in para
- 39 by relying upon the judgment Sanjeev Jain (supra) submits that where
both the members of the family husband and wife were earning member,
then 50% of the income of the deceased should be deducted in the personal
expenses, but in the present case, evidence has been on record that husband
was earning only Rs.10,000/- per month and wife was earning Rs.3,85,000/-
per year i.e. more than from his husband. In the aforesaid factual matrix, in
the considered view of this Court, looking to the number of survivors two,
learned Claims Tribunal was not right in deducting 1/2nd in the head of
personal expenses, therefore, arguments advanced on behalf of
respondent/insurance company in this case do not impress this Court and
contentions are repelled holding that in the head of personal expenses,
looking to the number of survivors in view of the observations contained in
case of Sarla Verma (Smt) (supra), 1/3rd of the income will be deducted in
the head of personal expenses.
1 0 . Looking to the age of the deceased 32 years and
observations/guidance given in para 59.4 of Pranay Sethi (Supra) 40% of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2154
6 MA-281-2016
income is to be added in the head of future prospects as income of the
deceased. Since husband and one son is survivor, therefore, both are entitled
for consortium Rs.40,000/- each and that addition will be Rs.80,000/-. In the
head of funeral expenses and loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- will be paid. The just
and proper amount of compensation will be computed as under:-
Rs.3,85,000/- + 40% (FP) = Rs.5,39,000/- (-) 1/3rd =
Dependency
Rs.3,59,334/- x multiplier 16 = Rs.57,49,344/-
Consortium Rs.40,000/- x 2 =Rs.80,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Funeral
Rs.15,000/-
expenses
Total Rs.58,59,344/-
less MACT
Rs.32,55,000/-
award
Enhanced
Rs.26,04,344/-
amount
11. Accordingly, claimants in (M.A.No.281/2016) are entitled to an
additional sum of Rs.26,04,344/- over and above the amount which has been
awarded by the Tribunal.
1 2 . The appeal (M.A.No.281/2016) is valued as Rs.10,00,000/- and
for the rest of the amount the claimants will pay the requisite Court fees
within a period of one month and only thereafter the enhanced amount will
be paid with interest as applied by the Claims Tribunal and the other terms
and conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
1 3 . In M.A. No. 280/2016, compensation is to be computed for the
death of minor Archita, aged about 9 years in view of the judgment relied
upon Kajal (supra), Para 14 of the judgment passed in the case of Karuna
Parmar (supra) and also para 9 of the judgment passed in Hitesh Nagjibhai
Patel (supra), this Court is of the view that income of the deceased is not in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2154
7 MA-281-2016
consonance with the guidance provided in these cases, therefore, income of
the skilled labour on the date of death i.e. 12.01.2011 will be taken which is
Rs.4425/- as per the Circular issued by the Labour Department under
Minimum Wages Act.
1 4 . Looking to the age of the minor deceased and
observations/guidance given inpara 59.4 of Pranay Sethi (Supra) 40% of the
income is to be added in the head of future prospects as income of the
deceased and 1/2nd of the income will be deducted in the head of personal
expenses as deceased was minor. Multiplier of 18 will be applied. In the case
o f United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur Alias
Satwinder Kaur and Others reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780, parental
consortium is awarded to the children who lose the care and protection of
their parents in motor vehicle accidents, therefore, since the father of the
minor deceased is alive, therefore, consortium of Rs.40,000/- is awarded in
this head.
Thus just and proper amount of compensation will be computed as
under:-
Rs.4425/- x 12 = Rs.53,100/- + 40% (FP) Rs.21,240/- =
Dependency
Rs.74,340/- (-) 1/2 = Rs.37,170/- x 18 = Rs.6,69,060/-
Consortium Rs.40,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Funeral
Rs.15,000/-
expenses
Total Rs.7,39,060/-
less MACT
Rs.3,25,000/-
award
Enhanced
Rs.4,14,060/-
amount
15. Accordingly, claimants in (M.A.No.280/2016) are entitled to an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2154
8 MA-281-2016
additional sum of Rs.4,14,060/- over and above the amount which has been
awarded by the Tribunal.
16. The appeal (M.A.No.280/2016) is valued as Rs.2,00,000/- and for
the rest of the amount the claimants will pay the requisite Court fees within a
period of one month and only thereafter the enhanced amount will be paid
with interest as applied by the Claims Tribunal and the other terms and
conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
17. Resultantly, both these appeals filed by the claimants are allowed
to the extent as indicated herein above.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
soumya
