Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manohar Sabnani(Name Deleted As Per ... vs Shabbir Khan on 2 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16821
1 MA-1062-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 2 nd OF JULY, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 1062 of 2015
MANOHAR SABNANI(NAME DELETED AS PER C.O. DTD.
07/12/2022) AND OTHERS
Versus
SHABBIR KHAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Avinash Kumar Khare - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Akhilesh Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
1. The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 being aggrieved by award dated 15/4/2015 passed by the claims tribunal in claim case No.41/2015 challenging the inadequacy of the compensation.
2. The factum of accident and liability of the Insurance Company is not under dispute.
3. Short facts giving rise to the case are that on 29/10/2013 around 2 to 2.30 PM deceased Pawan Sabnani was taking his sister Ayushi to Royal College for appearing in the examination. When they reached in front of Jain Dhaba near Salakhedi Police Chowki, the truck bearing registration No. R.J. 05 GA 1312 came which was being driven by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner and dashed into the motorbike of deceased Pawan who has died on the spot. The accident was reported at Station Road Police Station, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 7/7/2025 7:28:38 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16821 2 MA-1062-2015 Ratlam where the FIR was registered under Section 304-A, 279, 337, 338 of IPC at Crime No.503/2013. The claim petition was filed by the father, mother and brother of the deceased before the claims tribunal under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988, claiming that the deceased was the student of engineering and after bringing the evidence on record about the same compensation was claimed. The claims tribunal concluded in para 23 and 26 of the award that the appellants were not able to prove that the deceased was student of B.E. final years and after taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4000/- per months awarded a compensation of Rs.3,61,500/- in all heads with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the findings of the claims tribunal disbelieving the deceased being engineering student are not based on material which was on record. He submits that not only that the documents regarding educational loan of the deceased was produced, but specific statement was made regarding the same, but the claims tribunal has wrongly stated that merely producing statement of education loan would not prove this fact. He further submits that now before this Court an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC has been filed. Along with the said application mark sheets of the deceased Pawan Sabnani of B.E. 4th Semester, 5th Semester and 6th Semester have been filed which are undisputable. He further submits that the mark sheet of deceased would show that he was a student of B.E. Civil Engineering and was studying in the institute named Shri Yogendra Sagar Institute of Technology in Science, which was affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 7/7/2025 7:28:38 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16821 3 MA-1062-2015 Thus he submits that the future of the deceased was bright and he would have secured a job with handsome monthly income. He further submits that at the time of accident deceased was 23 years old which can be seen from Annexure P/2, which is a document from the college / institution where the deceased was studying. He also refers to the fact that the claims tribunal after taking notional income of the appellant at Rs.4000/- per month has went on to award a compensation without adding future prospects in the income of the deceased. He also submits that the application of multiplier of 14 looking to the age of the deceased is also incorrect in view of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 a n d Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 .
5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that no amount has been awarded for consortium although there were three claimants.
6. He also submits that in other heads also a meager amount of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded which is very less. Thus he prays for enhancement of compensation for the above reasons.
7. He also points out that the appellant has brought on record mark sheets of the deceased Pawan Sabnani which have been issued by the Rajiv Gandhi Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal. These are the documents issued by a Public Authority which are undisputable in nature. He submits that during pendency of this appeal only male person of the family ie., appellant No.1 Manohar Sabnani has died and now there are only two appellants ie., Smt. Babita and Aayushi, mother and sister of the deceased Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 7/7/2025 7:28:38 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16821 4 MA-1062-2015 are alive. Thus he submits that in view of the peculiar facts of this case instead of remanding the case back to the claims tribunal for taking into consideration the documents placed on record along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC this Court may take the same into consideration for assessment of income of the deceased.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the fact that the deceased was an engineering student, if taken to be correct for sake of arguments, still he was not a very bright student which is reflected from his mark sheets. Thus he submits that in any case assessment of income on notional basis at Rs.4000/- is correct and proper. He submits that there was no guarantee that the deceased would have completed his engineering looking to the marks he obtained in the semester for which the mark sheets have been enclosed.
9. He further submits that the documents placed on record along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC cannot be taken into account and if such is the case then matter should be remanded back to the claims tribunal for consideration of the same.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. First thing to be noted here is that now there are two appellants, the mother and sister of the deceased. There was a third appellant Mr. Manohar Sabnani, who was the father of the deceased, sadly he has died during the pendency of the present appeal. Thus in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the plight of two ladies who have lost their two earning members of the family this Court considered it proper to take into Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 7/7/2025 7:28:38 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16821 5 MA-1062-2015 account the documents placed by the appellants on record along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. The documents are reliable in nature for the simple reason that they are nothing but mark sheets issued by the Rajiv Gandhi Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Comapny could have easily verified the genuineness of those mark sheets. Neither the objection on the application of the appellants has been filed nor any demur on the genuineness of the mark sheet has been raised by the counsel for the Insurance Company during the arguments. His only emphasis is on the marks scored by the deceased. Thus in absence of any dispute on the genuineness of the mark sheet, they are taken into consideration.
12. Now considering the findings recorded by the claims tribunal in para 23 and 26 of the award it is seen that the claims tribunal has recorded in para 23 that Manohar Sabnani AW.1 (Late father of the deceased) in his examination - in - chief had stated that his son deceased was an student of Yogendra Sagar Institute of Technology in B.E. final year. It has also been recorded that the statement of education loan has been produced and after this the claims tribunal concluded only on the based of same it cannot be accepted that the deceased was a student of final year B.E. Engineering. Thus his income was taken at Rs.4000/- per month. The appellants have also stated that apart from studying deceased was working part time as supervisor and was earning Rs.16000/- per month. This assertion of the appellants has also been repelled by the claims tribunal and consequently it remain static on the notional income of Rs.4000/- per month for the deceased. In view of the fact Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 7/7/2025 7:28:38 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16821 6 MA-1062-2015 that this Court has considered the mark sheets of the deceased which are of B.E. Civil Engineering issued by the very same institute which has been named by AW.1 in his examination - in - chief it is hereby held that the deceased was a student of engineering. Now as to the income of the deceased Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Singh @ Deepak Chauhan V/s. Mukesh & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC on-line SC 277 has considered this aspect of income of an engineering student. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded in Para 7 which reads as under :-
"7. While dealing with the claim of compensation of a similarly placed individual, i.e., a student in his twenties, this Court in Harpreet Singh (supra) 2 (2011) 1 SCC 343 took exception to equating the notional income of an Engineering student to that of an unskilled worker the following terms -
"13. But we do not think that the notional income of a student undergoing a Degree course in Engineering from a premier institute should be taken to be equivalent to the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled worker. Students recruited through campus interviews are atleast offered a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. Even if we do not go on the said basis, the High Court could have fixed the notional income atleast at Rs.10,000/- per month.
14. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and by exercising our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we take the notional monthly income of the appellant as Rs.10,000/ per month."
13. The Hon'ble Court went on to hold in para 8 that looking to the fact that accident took place in the year 2012 hence reliance can be placed on Harpreet Singh in the attending facts taking the notional income to be Rs.10,000/- per month the compensation to be awarded.
14. As such for the engineering student the Hon'ble Apex Court in the year of 2012 has taken income on notional basis as Rs.10,000/-. In the present case the accident took place on 29/10/2003 . Thus in the considered view of this Court the notional income of the deceased should be at Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 7/7/2025 7:28:38 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16821 7 MA-1062-2015 Rs.10,000/- per month, which is taken as such.
15. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for respondent/ Insurance Co., that deceased was not bright student, the assessment of the academic excellence of the deceased neither can be done nor it would be proper to consider the same particularly in view of the fact that this Court has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month, which even for an ordinary student of engineering is not much.
16. As regards the future prospects the claims tribunal did not add anything in the income of the deceased under the head of future prospects which is not in accordance with law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus looking to the age 23 years of the deceased, 40% has to be added in the income for future prospects.
17. The claims tribunal has applied multiplier of 14, which is not in accordance with law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra). For the age of 23 years the multiplier of 18 has to be applied.
18. As regards the deduction for personal expenses it is seen that the claims tribunal has deducted 50% for the reasons being the deceased was a bachelor which in the considered view of this Court is correct. Thus after the above modifications the just and proper compensation for loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,12,000/-.
19. The claims tribunal has not awarded anything for loss of consortium to the appellants / claimants although the appellants before the claims tribunal were father, mother and sister of the deceased. Thus they all Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 7/7/2025 7:28:38 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16821 8 MA-1062-2015 are entitled for loss of consortium in view of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Nanu Ram & Ors, 2018 ACJ 2782 . As such for each of three claimants Rs.40,000/- is awarded for loss of consortium which would come to Rs.1,20,000/-. In other heads the claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- which is modified to Rs.30,000/-. As such the total compensation after the above modification would come to Rs.16,62,000/-. The claims tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.3,61,000/-, after deducing the same, the appellant are now entitled for an amount of Rs.13,01,000/- (Rs. Thirteen Lakh One Thousand only) which should be paid to the appellants/claimants by the Insurance Company. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the same rate and in the same manner as has been awarded by the claims tribunal. The other conditions of the award shall remain intact subject to the changes which have to be made in view of the death of appellant No.1 - Mr. Manohar Sabnani.
20. In the above terms, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed off.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE SS/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 7/7/2025 7:28:38 PM