Sumitara Yadav vs Vishnu Soni on 11 March, 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6423

1 MA-659-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 11th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 659 of 2015
RAJESH KUMAR THRU.HIS FATHER NARENDRA KUMAR
Versus
VISHNU SONI AND OTHERS

Shri Vishal Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Monesh Jindal, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

Shri Saiyad Ashif Ali Warsi, learned counsel for the respondents No.4 and 5.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 728 of 2015
SUMITARA YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
VISHNU SONI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saiyad Ashif Ali Warsi, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Monesh Jindal, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

ORDER

These appeals have been preferred by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned award dated 16.12.2014 passed in claim case No.63/2011 (M.A.No.659/2015) and claim case No.19/2012 (M.A.No.728/2015). In claim case No.63/2011 (Rajesh Kumar vs. Vishnu & Ors.) an amount of total compensation of Rs.9,42,250/- has been awarded with interest and in claim case No.19/2012 (Sumitra Yadav vs. Vishnu Soni & Ors.) an amount of total compensation of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6423

2 MA-659-2015

Rs.5,12,000/- has been awarded with interest to the survivors of the deceased Harsh @ Satish Yadav.

2. As per claimants case, on 17.6.2011 at about 9.30 PM in the night deceased Harsh @ Satish Yadav and injured Rajesh Kumar were travelling on a motorcycle on Ujjain Kota road. When their motorcycle was dashed by Truck Trolla bearing registration No.R.J. 01/G/7158 wherein deceased Harsh @ Satish Yadav died while taking him to hospital on the way and injured Rajesh Kumar received grievous injuries. The incident was reported to the police station, Agar where criminal case was registered for commission of offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. Thereafter survivors of the deceased and injured Rajesh Kumar, filed claim petition as

mentioned in hereinabove where the amount has been awarded by the claims tribunal as has been mentioned in the preceding para of this order.

3 . Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant (Rajesh) submits that he was a highly qualified person and has undergone the training in Syncan Company and was offered a job as medical representative for salary of Rs.8,450/- but before joining the service the accident took place and he could not join the job. The learned claims tribunal has only assessed the income of the injured as Rs.4000/- per month. His income should have been assessed as skill labourer and which should be Rs.4,525/- per month.

4 . Learned counsel for the appellant/injured further submits that no amount has been awarded in the head of future prospects. Looking to the age of the injured 25 years 40% of the income should have been added in the future prospects. He further submits that disability certificate Exhibit P/30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6423

3 MA-659-2015 has been obtained from the doctor and 80% disability was given, but the learned claims tribunal has taken it as 50% which is only conjectures and surmises. No cogent reason has been given for reducing the disability. He further submits that genuine medical bills have not been taken into consideration and only an amount of Rs.5,32,000/- has been awarded in the head of medical expenditures whereas a final bill of Rs.10,00,000/- from CHL Apollo Hospital was obtained and filed as Exhibit P/106 to Exhibit P/118 on record. He further submits that he was further been treated as indoor patient in SNG Hospital and has also undergone physiotherapy and bills thereof have been filed but the same has also not been considered. He also submits that the appellant/injured was only 25 years of age on the date of accident, therefore, proper multiplier of 17 should have been applied. On these submissions, he prays that just and proper amount of compensation be enhanced on the heads of medical bills, income, future prospects and permanent disability by allowing the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant/injured.

5 . In M.A.No.728/2015, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the survivors of the deceased has submitted that deceased was serving as contractual teacher and was earning salary of Rs.3,500/- but after his death by notification that salary has been enhanced to Rs.7000/- which has not been taken into consideration by the claims tribunal. He further submits that his age has been considered as 30 years and multiplier of only 14 has been applied. He submits that in para 29 of the impugned award the age of the

deceased has been considered as 30 years and multiplier of 14 has been

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6423

4 MA-659-2015 applied whereas it should have been 17 years as per age of the deceased and as per para 42 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 . He further submits that a meager amount has been awarded on the head of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, which should have been Rs.40,000/- to each of the survivor's of the deceased who are parents, wife and daughter and in the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate it should have been Rs.15,000/- each head as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 (para 59.8). On these submissions, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants prays for appropriate enhancement of the compensation amount by allowing the appeal.

6 . On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent / Insurance Company has opposed the prayer for enhancement in both these appeals. In M.A.No.659/2015, counsel submits that income has been assessed as per the evidence available on record. No evidence has been adduced that appellant was having more income then has been actual taken by the learned claims tribunal. He fairly admits that in the head of future prospects addition should have been as per the age 26 years it should have been 40% that has not been given which may be allowed but as far as permanent disability is concerned, learned counsel submits that learned claims tribunal has properly assessed the disability and taken it as 50% which is just and proper and same cannot be enhanced merely on the basis of certificate obtained by the claimant. He has opposed the prayer of the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6423

5 MA-659-2015 counsel for the appellant/injured for including all the medical bills on the ground that no receipts have been filed to prove that the amount which is shown in the bills has actually been paid by the appellant. He further submits that all the bills are duplicate and looking to the aforesaid learned claims tribunal has considered all the valid bills and awarded an amount of Rs.5,32,000/- in the head of medical expenditures which is proper and it cannot be enhanced merely on the submissions of some documents, payment whereof is not proved. On these submissions, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Co. prays for passing appropriate order for just and proper compensation.

7 . In M.A.No.728/2015, learned counsel submits that income of the deceased Harsh @ Satish Yadav was proved to the tune of Rs.3,500/- and that has been considered by the learned claims tribunal. Merely increase in the salary of the deceased prospectively cannot be taken into consideration, as he passed away before increase in the salary by any notification. He further submits that future prospects and funeral expenses and loss of estate should have been awarded as per the guidelines given by the Apex Court Pranay Sethi (supra) that this Court may take into consideration. On these submissions learned counsel prays for passing appropriate order by enhancing just and proper compensation to the survivors of the deceased.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. In M.A.No.659/2015 filed on behalf of the injured Rajesh Kumar, income of the appellant has been taken Rs.4000/- per month. As far as income of the injured on the basis of offer letter is concerned cogent

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6423

6 MA-659-2015 evidence has not been led before the learned claims tribunal. Even what was the actual qualification of the injured has also not been proved, but even in the aforesaid circumstances income of the injured should have been taken as per the prevailing circular issued by the Labour Department under the Minimum Wages Act, which come to Rs.4395/- on the date of accident, ie., on 17.6.2011 therefore, this Court is of the view that income should have been atleast Rs.4395/-, which has been assessed in between 26 to 30 years therefore 40% amount should have been added in the income in the future heads as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) (para 59.8).

10. As far as permanent disability part is concerned, learned claims tribunal has taken into consideration kind of injuries suffered by the injured and disability certificate and the testimony of Dr. Rupesh Khatri (AW.6) and thereafter claims tribunal has assessed the permanent disability to the tune of 50% of the whole body which in view of this Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or on lower side, therefore, this disability finding with regard to disability part is upheld.

11. As far as the multiplier the age of the injured is in between 26 to 30 the multiplier applied should have been 17 as per para 42 of the judgment o f Sarla Verma (supra) but the learned claims tribunal has taken the multiplier of 15, which is erroneous therefore, it is held that multiplier of 17 will be applicable while computing the just and proper compensation.

12. As far as actual medical expenditure is concerned various documents have been filed and a final bill Exhibit P/106 to Exhibit P/118 has also been filed. All these documents which have been filed on behalf of the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6423

7 MA-659-2015 injured regarding medical expenditure has been considered by the learned claims tribunal in para 20 to 22 and 32 of the impugned award and after minute scrutiny an amount of Rs.5,32,000/- has been added in the head of medical expenditures. In other miscellaneous heads, a total amount of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded which looking to the hospitalization of the injured, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid amount is on lower side hence the same is enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, this Court is of the view that looking to the fact that no receipt with regard to payment of all bills which has been filed has been produced and bills are also duplicate. Keeping in view the aforesaid evidence, the amount of Rs.5,32,000/- has been given in the head of medical expenditure, which does not warrant any interference hence this finding is also upheld. Accordingly just and proper compensation comes in M.A.No.659/2015 as under :-

Permanent disability Rs.6,27,606/-(Rs.4395+1758)x12x50%x17

Medical expenses Rs.5,32,250/-

Other heads Rs.1,00,000/-

Total compensation Rs.12,59,856/-

13. Therefore, in view of the above, the appellant is now entitled to receive the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,17,600/- (enhanced amount of Rs.12,59,856 - Rs.9,42,250 awarded amount). The enhanced amount of Rs.3,17,600/- shall carry the same interest as awarded by the learned claims tribunal. The Court fees has been paid on the valuation of Rs.20,00,000/- and actual enhancement must be below than that therefore, Registry shall consider to refund of the Court fee, if permissible under law.

14. In M.A.No.728/2015 income of the deceased has been taken as Rs.3,500/- per month which existed on the date of accident. Notification

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6423

8 MA-659-2015

which has been referred by the counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants has not been filed and it has also not been proved by the cogent evidence that it was in retrospective in operation therefore, enhancement of monthly income, if any, after death of the deceased cannot be considered for the deceased. Accordingly, the income taken by the learned claims tribunal of deceased as Rs.3,500/- is proper and no interference is warranted in the same. In the head of future prospects 40% should have been added as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), but the same has not been granted. Looking to the age of deceased 30 years therefore, 40% of income head is added in future prospects. Multiplier of 14 has been applied whereas multiplier of 17 should have been applied as per table given in para 42 of Sarla Verma (supra) therefore, multiplier of 17 is taken instead of 14. In the head of consortium wife, daughter and parents are entitled for Rs.1,60,000/-, in the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate Rs.15,000/- each is added. Thus the appropriate compensation in M.A.No.728/2015 now comes as under :-

Loss of Rs.6,66,400/- (Rs.3500 + 1400) x12x 2/3rd x 17 Dependency Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-

Loss of funeral Rs.15,000/-

expenses Loss of Consortium Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 4) Total Rs.8,56,400/-

Compensation

15. Therefore, in view of the above, the appellants/survivors are now entitled to receive the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,44,400/- (enhanced amount of Rs.8,56,400 - Rs.5,12,000 awarded amount by claims tribunal).

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6423

9 MA-659-2015 The enhanced amount of Rs.3,44,400/- shall carry the same interest as awarded by the learned claims tribunal. Registry is directed to refund the excess amount of court fees, if any deposited by the appellants/claimants in accordance with law.

16. Rest of the terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact.

17. M.A.No.659/2015 and M.A.No.728/2015, stand allowed in part to the extent as indicated hereinabove and disposed off.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE

SS/-