[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Mamta vs Kamlesh on 23 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2163
1 MA-2671-2019
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. 2671 of 2019
SMT. MAMTA AND OTHERS
Versus
KAMLESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Kumar Tripathi - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Bhashkar Agrawal with Shri Bharat Yadav - Advocates for
respondents No.3 - Insurance Company.
ORDER
This Misc. Appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned award dated 24/07/2018 passed by
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alirajpur (M.P.) in Claim Case
No.87/2017, whereby an amount of Rs.28,61,052/- has been passed with
with simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of institution of claim
petition, for the death of deceased Banti Meda, Head Constable, who met
with a Road Traffic Accident caused by Toofan vehicle bearing registration
number MP-09-S-8954 driven rashly and negligently by its driver /
respondent No.1.
2. It is not in dispute that deceased was 29 years of age and was in
service of Police Department as Head Constable on the date of accident and
death i.e. 27/02/2017. His income Rs.19,604/- per month is also not in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2163
2 MA-2671-2019
dispute. Survivors of the deceased are five in number. Learned counsel for
the appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal has applied multiplier of
16, which should be 17 as per the age band of 26-30 years as held by the
Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and followed in the case of National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 .
3. It is also not in dispute that deceased was in permanent job,
therefore, as per 59.3 and 59.4 of Pranay Sethi's (Supra) judgment 50% will
be added in the head of Future Prospects and 1/3rd will be deducted towards
personal expenses looking to the number of dependents. Learned counsel
submits that an amount of Rs.48,300/- was given as ex-gratia by the Police
Department that will not be deducted from the amount computed as just and
proper compensation. He further submits that including the 50% amount
towards Future Prospects the total income comes to Rs.3,52,872/- per
annum, therefore, on the date of death deceased was not under the liability of
payment of income tax, therefore, 30% towards income tax, which has been
deducted from the amount of compensation by the learned Claims Tribunal
should be discarded and it should not have been deducted as he was not
coming in that slab on the date of death.
4. Learned counsel further submits that an amount of Rs.40,000/- for
each dependent with an increase of 10% in every three years should be
added in the head of Loss of Consortium as per para 59.8 of the judgment in
the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) as survivors are wife, two children and
parents. He further submits that an amount of Rs.15,000/- with an increase of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2163
3 MA-2671-2019
10% in every three years should also have been awarded in the head of Loss
of Estate and Funeral Expenses, which has not been awarded by the learned
Claims Tribunal. On these submissions, learned counsel prays for allowing
the appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supporting
the impugned award vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that
amount of Rs.48,300/- has been given as ex-gratia due to accidental death by
the Police Department, therefore, it will be deducted from the amount of
compensation by the Claims Tribunal. He further submits that statutory
liability of income tax is to be deducted on the ground that in future he
would have come under the income tax liability, however, he fairly admits
that on the date of death the income computed does not come under the
purview of Income Tax liability. On these submissions, learned counsel
supporting the impugned award prays for dismissal of the appeal being
devoid of substance.
6. Heard and considered the rival submissions raised at bar by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. As age and income of the deceased being in permanent job in
Police Department is not in dispute, therefore, multiplier of 17 will be
applied and in the head of Future Prospects 50% of the monthly income will
be added. Since the deceased was in service of police and ex-gratia amount
of Rs.48,300/- was given due to deceased being in that service, therefore, in
the considered view of this Court that amount should not be deducted from
the amount, which is computed as just and proper compensation by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2163
4 MA-2671-2019
Claims Tribunal.
8. Since the appellant was not coming under the income tax liability
as per the income tax slab applicable on the date of death, therefore, the
amount towards income tax should not be deducted from the compensation.
9. In the head of loss of consortium, as per para 59.8 of the case in
Pranay Sethi (Supra) , all five survivors will get amount at the rate of
Rs.40,000/- each with an increase of 10%, which comes to Rs.2,20,000/-.
Hence, the claimants are entitled for Rs.2,20,000/- towards Loss of
Consortium.
10. Similarly, in the light of para 59.8 of Pranay Sethi (Supra) , in the
head of Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, an amount of Rs.15,000/- each
with an increase of 10% is awarded, which comes to Rs.16,500/-, therefore,
the claimants are entitled for Rs.16,500/-each towards Funeral Expenses and
Loss of Estate.
11. Thus, the just and proper compensation comes as under:
Rs.19,604/- per month + 50% Future Prospects = 29,406/-
Loss of per month x 12 = Rs.3,52,872/- (-) 1/3rd personal
Dependency: expenses = Rs.1,17,624/- x 17
multiplier = Rs.39,99,216/-
Loss of
Rs.2,20,000/-
Consortium:
Loss of
Rs.16,500/-
Estate:
Funeral
Rs.16,500/-
Expenses:
Total: Rs.42,52,216/-
MACT
Rs.28,61,052/-
Awarded:
Enhanced
Rs.13,91,164/-
Amount:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2163
5 MA-2671-2019
12. Thus, the amount is enhanced and appellants / claimants are
entitled to an additional amount of Rs.13,91,164/- over and above the
amount, which has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
13. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellants / claimants is
allowed to the extent as indicated hereinabove. The other terms and
conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Tej
