[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Banwari vs Murari Lal Gurjar on 23 January, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3084
1 MA-1062-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 23 rd OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 1062 of 2015
BANWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
MURARI LAL GURJAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ramesh Prasad Gupta - Advocate for the appellants..
Shri Rajesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance
Company.
Shri Madhukar Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , being aggrieved by the Award
dated 29.07.2015 passed by Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
District- Morena (M.P.) (in short "the Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case
No.94/2015 on account of inadequacy of compensation 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, due to death of Ramprakash
Jatav Singh in the motor accident, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to
the tune of Rs.6,83,400/- along with interest from the date of filing of the claim
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3084
2 MA-1062-2015
petition till realization.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Award is contrary to
settled principles of law and suffers from serious errors of appreciation. It is
further submitted that the Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the
deceased only to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month. It is contended that there is
ample evidence on record to prove that the death was result of accident, therefore,
income of the deceased must be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act. Hence, it is
prayed that the impugned Award be modified suitably, and just and reasonable
compensation be awarded by reassessing the income and other conventional heads
in accordance with law.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance
Company and 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. After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of the Claims
Tribunal, it is found that the appellants have utterly failed to adduce any
substantial evidence in regard to income of the deceased. Hence, this Court finds
it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as an unskilled person in view
of the law laid down in the cases of 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 ACC 134 in which it is held that when
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3084
3 MA-1062-2015
documentary proof of income is lacking, income is to be assessed as per the
minimum wages applicable. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the
just and proper amount of the income of the deceased as per Minimum Wages
Act in the present case is Rs.5,520/- per month of an unskilled person instead of
Rs.5,000/- per month, which has wrongly been assessed by the Claims Tribunal.
8. As regard to loss of income including future prospects, in the light of
judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ 2700 , the
claimants are entitled for loss of income including future prospects. As per Pranay
Sethi (supra), future prospects @ 25% be assessed. Further, 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 14 has rightly been applied.
9. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive
compensation under the following heads:-
HEAD AMOUNT
Income Rs.5,520 x 12= Rs.66,240/- P.A.
Future Prospects@25% Rs.82,800/-
Dependency 1/4 Rs.62,100/-
Multiplier 14 Rs.8,69,400/-
Other Heads:-
Medical Bill Rs.3,400/-
Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000 X 4 = Rs.1,60,000/-
Loss of Estate and funeral expenses Rs.30,000/-
Total = Rs.10,62,800/-
10. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation payable in the
present case comes to Rs.10,62,800/- as against the sum of Rs.6,83,400/- awarded
by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are held
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3084
4 MA-1062-2015
entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.3,79,400/- over and above the
amount already awarded by the Tribunal.
11. Consequently, this miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed, and the
compensation amount is enhanced by Rs.3,79,400/-. The enhanced compensation
shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal.
The enhanced amount shall be paid to the appellants within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The remaining
conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.
12. In case the enhanced compensation exceeds the valuation of the appeal,
the appellants shall deposit the differential Court fee (if not already paid) within a
period of one month from today and furnish proof of such payment before the
Registry. Upon compliance, the Registry shall issue the certified copy of this
order.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the miscellaneous appeal filed by
the appellants stands disposed of accordingly.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
*VJ*
