Madhya Pradesh High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Vinod on 31 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
-1- MA-5054-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 31st OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 5054 of 2019
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
MANISH AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for appellant / Insurance Company.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 5055 of 2019
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
TULSABAI AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for appellant / Insurance Company.
Shri Vijay Singh Chouhan and Shri Jagdish Vaishnav - Advocates
for respondents.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 5058 of 2019
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 4/1/2026
4:34:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
-2- MA-5054-2019
VINOD AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for appellant / Insurance Company.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 5061 of 2019
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
LAXMIBAI AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for appellant / Insurance Company.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 5108 of 2019
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
NILESH AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for appellant / Insurance Company.
Shri Vijay Singh Chouhan and Shri Jagdish Vaishnav - Advocates
for respondents.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 5116 of 2019
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 4/1/2026
4:34:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
-3- MA-5054-2019
Versus
SMT. TULSA AND OTHERS
..........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for appellant / Insurance Company.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 5117 of 2019
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
KU. PRIYANKA AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for appellant / Insurance Company.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 5122 of 2019
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
SMT. ARCHANA AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for appellant / Insurance Company.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 5126 of 2019
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
NIKHIL AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 4/1/2026
4:34:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
-4- MA-5054-2019
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for appellant / Insurance Company.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 5176 of 2019
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
KU. SRAJIKA @ SANJANA D/O RAJU VERMA MINOR THR.
GUARDIAN FATHER RAJU AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for appellant / Insurance Company.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 5197 of 2019
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
SMT. RASHMI AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for appellant / Insurance Company.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 5201 of 2019
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
ISHAN (MINOR) THROUGH U/G MOTHER RASHMI AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for appellant / Insurance Company.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 4/1/2026
4:34:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
-5- MA-5054-2019
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 5724 of 2019
MANISH AND OTHERS
Versus
NAVEENSINGH AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Singh Chouhan and Shri Jagdish Vaishnav - Advocates
for appellants.
Shri Saranjit Singh Chawla - Advocate for respondent / Insurance
Company.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 6827 of 2019
TULSABAI AND OTHERS
Versus
NAVEENSINGH AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Singh Chouhan and Shri Jagdish Vaishnav - Advocates
for appellants.
Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for respondent / Insurance Company.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 625 of 2020
VINOD AND OTHERS
Versus
NAVEENSINGH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 4/1/2026
4:34:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
-6- MA-5054-2019
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Singh Chouhan and Shri Jagdish Vaishnav - Advocates
for appellants.
Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for respondent / Insurance Company.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 5617 of 2019
LAXMIBAI AND OTHERS
Versus
NAVEEN SINGH AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Singh Chouhan and Shri Jagdish Vaishnav - Advocates
for appellants.
Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for respondent / Insurance Company.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 6741 of 2019
NILESH VERMA
Versus
NAVIN SINGH AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Singh Chouhan and Shri Jagdish Vaishnav - Advocates
for appellant.
Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for respondent / Insurance Company.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 4/1/2026
4:34:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
-7- MA-5054-2019
MISC. APPEAL No. 6783 of 2019
SMT. TULSA
Versus
NAVEENSINGH AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Singh Chouhan and Shri Jagdish Vaishnav - Advocates
for appellant.
Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for respondent / Insurance Company.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 6747 of 2019
KU. PRIYANKA
Versus
NAVEENSINGH AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Singh Chouhan and Shri Jagdish Vaishnav - Advocates
for appellant.
Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for respondent / Insurance Company.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 5618 of 2019
SMT. ARCHANA
Versus
NAVEEN SINGH AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Singh Chouhan and Shri Jagdish Vaishnav - Advocates
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 4/1/2026
4:34:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
-8- MA-5054-2019
for appellant.
Ms. Priti Keshwani - Advocate for respondent / Insurance
Company.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 5614 of 2019
NIKHIL
Versus
NAVEENSINGH AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Singh Chouhan and Shri Jagdish Vaishnav - Advocates
for appellant.
Ms. Priti Keshwani - Advocate for respondent / Insurance
Company.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 6760 of 2019
SRAJIKA @ SANJANA VERMA THROUGH GAURDIAN FATHER
RAJU
Versus
NAVEENSINGH AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Singh Chouhan and Shri Jagdish Vaishnav - Advocates
for appellants.
Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for respondent / Insurance Company.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 4/1/2026
4:34:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
-9- MA-5054-2019
MISC. APPEAL No. 6829 of 2019
SMT. RASHMI
Versus
NAVEENSINGH AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Singh Chouhan and Shri Jagdish Vaishnav - Advocates
for appellant.
Shri Sanjay Mehra - Advocate for respondent / Insurance
Company.
...........................................................................................................................
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 6786 of 2019
ISHAN VERMA S/O SATYAPRAKASH VERMA (MINOR) THR.
GAURDIAN MOTHER RASHMI
Versus
NAVEENSINGH AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Singh Chouhan and Shri Jagdish Vaishnav - Advocates
for appellant.
Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma - Advocate for respondent / Insurance
Company.
...........................................................................................................................
ORDER
Heard on application(s) for condonation of delay. Delay, if any, in filing the appeal is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the application(s) filed in the respective appeals. Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 4/1/2026 4:34:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
- 10 - MA-5054-2019 Having regard similitude to the controversy involved in the present appeals as they are arising out of common award, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.
2. Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.5054/2019; 5055/2019; 5058/2019; 5061/2019; 5108/2019; 5116/2019; 5117/2019; 5122/2019; 5126/2019; 5176/2019; 5197/2019; and 5201/2019 have been preferred by the Insurance Company; and Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.6741/2019; 6783/2019; 6747/2019; 5618/2019; 5614/2019; 6760/2019; 6829/2019; and 6786/2019 have been preferred by appellant / claimant / injured and Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.5724/2019; 6827/2019; 625/2020; and 5617/2019 have been preferred by the appellants / survivors of the deceased under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the impugned award dated 28/02/2019 passed by XIII Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore (M.P.) in their respective claim cases.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 15/12/2015 at about 06:00 am deceased / claimants were riding in a bus bearing registration number MP- 09-FA-9597, which was being driven rashly and negligently by the Driver
- Rajesh Mansore, due to which Near Main Road Laangha Turning Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad the bus turned turtle and fell down in a Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 4/1/2026 4:34:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
- 11 - MA-5054-2019 trench, wherein deceased Baby Bai, Ashok Verma, Manorama and Hari Prasad have sustained grievous injuries and passed away and other persons have also sustained various injuries. Incident was reported to the concerned police station and thereafter, claimants / injured and claimants / survivors of the deceased persons have filed their separate respective claim petitions claiming compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company in respect of Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 5054/2019; 5055/2019; 5058/2019; 5061/2019; 5108/2019; 5116/2019; 5117/2019; 5122/2019; 5126/2019; 5176/2019; 5197/2019; and 5201/2019 submits that there was breach of permit by the offending vehicle as there was violation of Rule 85 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, wherein it is mandated that on the permit names, address and age of the passenger along with starting and the point of destination should be mentioned, but these details on permit have not been found. This point has not been considered by the learned Claims Tribunal while passing the impugned award. To prove this point, Law Officer Rohit Sharma (NAW-1); Investigator of the Company Mukesh Rawal (NAW-2) and employee of RTO Bhaiyalal Dwivedi (NAW-3) have been examined by the Insurance Company.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 4/1/2026 4:34:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
- 12 - MA-5054-2019 4.1 His contention is that as there was a breach of Rule 85, learned Claims Tribunal should have exonerated the Insurance Company. For this he has placed reliance on para 23 of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and Ors. Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2018 ACJ 1768; para 12 of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma and Others reported in 2004 ACJ 2094; and para 18 of the judgment by Kerala High Court in the case of Pareed Pillai Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2019 ACJ 16.
4.2 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has further vehemently opposed the findings given by the learned Claims Tribunal of fastening the liability on the Insurance Company in the teeth of breach of Rule 85 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Therefore, he submits that order of pay and recover should have been given. 4.3 He further submits that the rate of interest @ 9% awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is on very higher side, whereas the rate of interest at the relevant point of time i.e. on the date of accident was much less, therefore, instead of 9%, only 6% interest per annum be directed to be paid to the claimants, which will be just and proper in the facts and Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 4/1/2026 4:34:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
- 13 - MA-5054-2019 circumstances of the case.
4.4 His further contention is that there is no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned Claims Tribunal in computing the award amount, hence it cannot be enhanced on any count. On these submissions, learned counsel prays for allowing the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company and Insurance Company be exonerated and the appeals filed on behalf of the claimants are liable to be dismissed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants / injured persons / survivors of the deceased submits that learned Claims Tribunal has taken into account the fact which was argued with regard to the violation of permit conditions and after that concluded that there is no fundamental breach, which could exonerate the Insurance Company from the liability of paying compensation. Hence, the award cannot be questioned on that count.
5.1 Learned counsel further submits that income of the deceased and injured persons assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal is on lower side. If it was found that the income has not been proved by way of adducing cogent evidence, then it should have been taken on the basis of circular issued by the Labour Department of State of Madhya Pradesh under the Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 4/1/2026 4:34:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
- 14 - MA-5054-2019 Minimum Wages Act prevailing on the date of accident i.e. on 15/12/2015. 5.2 Learned counsel further submits that seriousness and nature of the injuries have also not been considered appropriately by the learned Claims Tribunal, which has resulted in awarding meager amount of compensation to the injured persons. His contention is that appellant(s) / claimant(s) have sustained various grievous injuries, details of which are as under:
i) Injured Nilesh in Misc. Appeal No.6741/2019 has sustained fracture of Proximal Phalanx of left little finger, fracture of mandible of right side and Dr. Bandi has been examined, who has issued Permanent Disability Certificate of 20%;
ii) Injured Smt. Tulsa in Misc. Appeal No.6783/2019 has sustained fracture of Tibia and Fibula bone in right leg and Dr. Mahendra has issued Permanent Disability Certificate of 35%;
iii) Injured Rashmi in Misc. Appeal No.6829/2019 has sustained fracture of Femur Bone of light leg, left Scapula Bone and fracture in L3 Vertibra and Dr. Bapat has issued Permanent Disability Certificate of 35%;
iv) Injured Priyanak in Misc. Appeal No.6747/2019 has suffered fractures of multiple ribs, however, doctor Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 4/1/2026 4:34:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
- 15 - MA-5054-2019 has not been examined;
v) Injured Smt. Archana in Misc. Appeal No.5618/2019 has sustained grievous injuries particularly fracture of Orbit Maxilla and Pelvic Bone and doctor has issued Permanent Disability Certificate of 20%;
vi) Injured Nikhil in Misc. Appeal No.5614/2019 has sustained grievous injuries particularly fracture of Temp Parietal Bone and ribs and injuries on fact, however, doctor has not been examined;
vii) Injured Srijika in Misc. Appeal No.6760/2019 has sustained fracture of Femur Bone in right leg and Doctor has assessed 18% disability; and
viii) Injured Ishan in Misc. Appeal No.6786/2019 has sustained injuries in Kidney and Spleen and Doctor has issued Permanent Disability Certificate of 20%.
Learned counsel inviting attention of this Court towards the aforesaid injuries sustained by these appellants / claimants submit that looking to the injuries suffered by applicants / injured person and also looking to the fact that very meager amount has been awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal towards compensation, the same requires to be enhanced adequately.
5.3 Learned counsel in respect of Misc. Appeal Nos.625/2020; 5724/2019; and 6827/2019 further submits that learned Claims Tribunal Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 4/1/2026 4:34:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
- 16 - MA-5054-2019 has deducted ½ towards personal expenses, whereas as per para 30 of the Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and followed in para 59.5 of the National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 where number of dependents is two to three, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses, therefore, learned counsel prays for deducting 1/3 rd towards personal expenses. On these miscellaneous contentions, learned counsel prays for allowing the appeals for enhancement preferred by the claimants / survivors of the deceased by dismissing the appeals preferred on behalf of the Insurance Company as Insurance Company has rightly not been exonerated.
6. Heard and considered the rival submissions raised at bar by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Driver and owner were ex parte before the learned Claims Tribunal and even before this Court after service of notice of these appeals, they have not marked their appearance.
8. From perusal of the evidence available on record in respect of Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.6741/2019; 6783/2019; 6747/2019; 5618/2019; 5614/2019; 6760/2019; 6829/2019; and 6786/2019, which Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 4/1/2026 4:34:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
- 17 - MA-5054-2019 have been preferred by appellants / claimants / injured persons, it is apparent that the these claimants / injured persons were travelling in the offending bus, which turned turtle due to negligence of its Driver.
9. In the accident these appellants have suffered various injuries including fractures in various parts of the body and some of them have also suffered permanent disability to some extent. From perusal of the evidence available on record in its totality with regard to the nature and number of injuries suffered by the appellants / claimants / injured persons, this Court is of the view that the amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is on lower side and should have been increased adequately in the above mentioned injury cases.
10. Therefore, without going into the nicety of the computation of the amount, the compensation amount is enhanced lump sum and appellants / victim persons are entitled to an additional amount of compensation over and above the amount, which have been awarded by the Claims Tribunal in their respective claim cases. The details of enhanced amount of compensation are as under:
Sr. Misc. Appeal MACT Enhanced
No. Numbers Awarded Lump sum Amount
01. 6747/2019 Rs.34,682/- Rs.40,000/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 4/1/2026
4:34:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
- 18 - MA-5054-2019
02. 5618/2019 Rs.2,52,003/- Rs.1,10,000/-
03. 5614/2019 Rs.1,59,789/- Rs.1,40,000/-
04. 6760/2019 Rs.1,21,385/- Rs.75,000/-
05. 6786/2019 Rs.1,94,018/- Rs.1,00,000/-
Resultantly, the above five appeals filed by the appellants / claimants / injured persons are allowed to the extent as indicated hereinabove.
11. Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.5724/2019; 6827/2019; 625/2020; and 5617/2019, have been preferred by the appellants / survivors of the deceased.
12. It is well settled that if the income has not been proved on the basis of evidence then it should be taken on the basis of circular issued under the Minimum Wages Act by the Labour Department prevailing on the date of accident. Same view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Chandra Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav reported in (2022) 1 SCC 198 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3093, which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"9. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning Rs 15,000 per month. Possessing such licence and driving of heavy vehicle on the date of accident is proved from the evidence on record. Though the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed as AW 1 that her husband Shivpal was earning Rs 15,000 per month, same was not considered only on the ground that Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 4/1/2026 4:34:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
- 19 - MA-5054-2019 salary certificate was not filed. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016. In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because the claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs 15,000 per month."
In view of the aforesaid judgment, the income is assessed reasonably in each and every death case as mentioned hereinbelow considering them as unskilled labourer for the purpose of computing Loss of Dependency, which will be sufficient to sub serve the ends of justice.
13. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case Pranay Sethi (Supra), has laid down certain guidelines for awarding the compensation in the heads of Loss of Consortium; Funeral Expenses; and Loss of Estate, therefore, the amount is awarded in these heads as mentioned hereinbelow keeping in view that perspective. Guidelines with regard to application of multiplier and deduction towards personal expenses have also been laid down in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 4/1/2026 4:34:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
- 20 - MA-5054-2019 case of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and followed in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), therefore, the same is applicable in the present cases also. Similarly, in the light of para 59.3 and 59.4 of the Pranay Sethi's judgment (Supra) survivors of the deceased are also entitled for future prospects as per their entitlement.
14. Therefore, in all the following death cases preferred by the claimants / survivors of the deceased persons, keeping in view all the above parameters as discussed hereinabove, just and proper compensation comes as under:
Misc. Description
Amount MACT Enhanced
Appeal of Total
Awarded Awarded Amount
Number Heads
5724/2019 Loss of Rs.6,575/- pm Rs.12,94,599/- Rs.7,57,000/- Rs.5,37,599/-
Dependency: + 40% FP (-)
1/3rd PE
X 12 months
X Multiplier of
15 =
Rs.11,04,599/-
Funeral
Rs.15,000/-
Expenses:
Loss of
Rs.15,000/-
Estate:
Loss of
Rs.1,60,000/-
Consortium:
6827/2019 Loss of Rs.4,37,940/- Rs.31,71,786/- Rs.24,16,344/- Rs.7,55,442/-
Dependency: pa + 15% FP
(-) 1/3rd PE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 4/1/2026
4:34:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
- 21 - MA-5054-2019 X Multiplier of 9= Rs.30,21,786/-
Funeral Rs.15,000/-
Expenses:
Loss of Rs.15,000/-
Estate:
Loss of Rs.1,20,000/-
Consortium:
625/2020 Loss of Rs.6,575/- pm Rs.5,18,200/- Rs.3,39,000/- Rs.1,79,200/-
Dependency: (-) 1/3rd PE X 12 months X Multiplier of 7= Rs.3,68,200/-
Funeral Rs.15,000/-
Expenses:
Loss of Rs.15,000/-
Estate:
Loss of Rs.1,20,000/-
Consortium:
5617/2019 Loss of Rs.6,575/- pm Rs.7,75,832/- Rs.5,90,950/- Rs.1,84,882/-
Dependency: + 10% FP
(-) 1/4th PE
X 12 months
X Multiplier of
9=
Rs.5,85,832/-
Funeral Rs.15,000/-
Expenses:
Loss of Rs.15,000/-
Estate:
Loss of Rs.1,60,000/-
Consortium:
Thus, the amount is enhanced and appellants / claimants / survivors are entitled to an additional amount of compensation as mentioned in the last column of the table, over and above the amount, which has already been Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 4/1/2026 4:34:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
- 22 - MA-5054-2019 awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal.
15. Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.6741/2019; 6783/2019; and 6829/2019 have been preferred by appellant / claimant / injured, wherein learned Claims Tribunal has grossly failed to award any amount in the head of loss of permanent disability, therefore, keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Apex court with regard to income; future prospects and application of multiplier in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra), after adding the amount towards permanent disability, just and proper compensation comes as under:
Misc. Description
Amount MACT Enhanced
Appeal of Total
Awarded Awarded Amount
Number Heads
6741/2019 Permanent Rs.6,575/- pm Rs.2,88,920/- Rs.1,01,138/- Rs.1,87,782/-
Disability: + 40% FP
X 12 months
X Multiplier of
17 =
Rs.18,77,820/-
= 10% PD
comes to
Rs.1,87,782/-
Medical
Rs.64,138/-
Bills:
Loss of
Rs.15,000/-
Income:
Loss of
Rs.7,000/-
Amenities:
Attendant &
Rs.10,000/-
Special Diet:
Conveyance: Rs.5,000/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 4/1/2026
4:34:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
- 23 - MA-5054-2019 6783/2019 Permanent Rs.6,575/- pm Rs.4,45,102/- Rs.2,91,247/- Rs.1,53,855/-
Disability: + 25% FP
X 12 months
X Multiplier of
13 =
Rs.12,82,125/-
= 12% PD
comes to
Rs.1,53,855/-
Medical
Rs.2,34,247/-
Bills:
Loss of
Rs.15,000/-
Income:
Pain and
Rs.20,000/-
Sufferings:
Attendant &
Rs.10,000/-
Special Diet:
Loss of
Rs.12,000/-
Amenities:
6829/2019 Permanent Rs.6,575/- pm Rs.5,95,089/- Rs.3,29,985/- Rs.2,65,104/-
Disability: + 40% FP
X 12 months
X Multiplier of
16 =
Rs.17,67,360/-
= 15% PD
comes to
Rs.2,65,104/-
Loss of
Rs.69,162/-
Income:
Pain and
Rs.20,000/-
Sufferings:
Special Diet,
Attendant & Rs.10,000/-
Conveyance:
Loss of
Rs.17,000/-
Amenities:
Medical
Rs.2,13,823/-
Bills:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 4/1/2026
4:34:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
- 24 - MA-5054-2019
16. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases, this Court is of the view that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in fastening direct liability on the Insurance Company, therefore, the finding in this regard is set aside. It is directed that the Insurance Company first will pay the compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal and as has been enhanced by this Court, as the case may be, and thereafter, will recover from the driver and owner of the offending vehicles.
17. Further, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% per annum, which appears on higher side looking to the prevailing rate of interest in the market over the deposits, therefore, the same deserves to be and is hereby reduced to simple interest @ 6% from the date of filing of respective claim petitions by the claimants.
18. The other terms and conditions of the impugned award in all the appeals, whether they are preferred by the Insurance Company / Claimants / Injured persons or the Survivors of the deceased persons, shall remain intact.
19. It is made clear that in case it is found that the amount enhanced by this order is more than the valuation of the respective appeal(s), then appellant(s) therein is directed to pay difference of the court fees at the Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 4/1/2026 4:34:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8512
- 25 - MA-5054-2019 prevailing rate within a period of 60 days from today, only then the amount will be disbursed to the appellant(s). It is also made clear that in case the court fees is not paid, wherever it is required to be paid, within the stipulated period, the appellant(s) will not be entitled for claiming interest on the enhanced amount beyond 60 days' period, till payment of requisite court fees.
20. Accordingly, the Misc. Appeals filed by the Insurance Company as well as the Misc. Appeals filed on behalf of the claimants / injured / survivors of the deceased are partly allowed to the extent as indicated hereinabove. All other pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
21. Let a copy of this order be kept in the record of all other connected appeals.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE Tej Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 4/1/2026 4:34:10 PM