Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramniwas vs Rajveer Sharma on 8 August, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17286
1 MA-732-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 8 th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 732 of 2023
RAMNIWAS AND OTHERS
Versus
RAJVEER SHARMA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akshat Kumar Jain - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal- Advocate for respondent No.3.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the appellants/claimants arising out of the award dated 01.11.2022 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred as "Claims Tribunal), Morena in Claim Case No.112/2020 on account of inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The date of accident, negligence and issue of liability are not in dispute, however, the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal in this regard is not in question.
3. As per the findings of the Tribunal in the case of death of Leelawati @ Leela Devi, Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.12,00,552/- with interest from the date of filing of claim application till its realization.
4. Counsel for appellants submitted that Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the award. Multiply of 14 will apply and 25% enhancement on the basis of future prospects will be applicable on minimum monthly income of skilled labour. It is Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 8/14/2025 10:11:26 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17286 2 MA-732-2023 further submitted that value of appeal is more than ten lakh and income of the housewife must be assessed on the basis of skilled labour. It is contended that Claims Tribunal has committed error in holding the age of deceased more than 45 years old. It is further contended that in post-mortem report (Ex.P-10), age of the deceased was mentioned as 45 years. So, 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, multiplier must be applied on the basis of age of deceased between 41 to 45 years and not between 46 to 50 years. Therefore, prays for enhancement of compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that income of the housewife cannot be assessed in terms of money. Looking to her/deceased capability, earning and loss of appellants, her income must be assessed as Skilled Labour, therefore, in support of his contentions, counsel for appellants placed reliance on the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dalvir Singh and Others 2025 SCC OnLine Del 844 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dhan Singh & Ors. 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 7957.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and argued in support of the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal.
7. Heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal.
8. Considering the evidence of the husband of deceased, he has accepted in his cross-examination in Para 8 that his wife/deceased had studied up to 10th Class, but he has failed to produce/filed mark-sheet of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 8/14/2025 10:11:26 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17286 3 MA-732-2023 deceased. Further, he admitted that he has also not produced any Adhar Card or Voter ID card of the deceased in regard to age of deceased. So, it is clear from the aforesaid discussion that claimants are hiding intentionally the age of the deceased. Also considering the para 8 of the cross-examination of husband of deceased and para 20 & 21 of the impugned award, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the age of the deceased between 46 -50 years and had rightly applied the multiplier of 13 as per Sarla Verma (supra) for amount of compensation. So, in considered opinion of this Court, income of the deceased must be considered only on the basis of unskilled labour as the claimants have failed to produce evidence in regard to age of the deceased.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error by assessing the income of the deceased as per Minimum Wages Act for calculating the amount of compensation in favour of the claimants.
10. No illegality or perversity is found in the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court in the instant appeal. Accordingly, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE *VJ* Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 8/14/2025 10:11:26 AM