Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Ramrati Rajak vs Bharat Kol on 21 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39625
1 MA-1236-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 21st OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 1236 of 2024
SMT. RAMRATI RAJAK AND OTHERS
Versus
BHARAT KOL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aishwarya Sahu - learned counsel on behalf of Shri Mithlesh Kumar Rajak -
Advocate for the appellants.
Smt. Amrit Kaur Ruprah - Advocate for respondent No.3.
ORDER
Heard on I.A.No.3282/2024, an application for condonation of delay.
2. There is a delay of 49 days in filing the appeal.
3. Considering the averments made therein, the application which is supported by an affidavit of appellant is allowed and delay caused in presenting the appeal is hereby condoned.
4. Heard.
5. This present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed against the award dated 19.09.2023, passed in Claim Case No.18/2021 by 1st MACT, Maihar, District Satna. By the said award, learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim case and granted compensation to the tune of Rs.12,10,700/- along with the interest of 6% per annum.
6. Factual matrix of the case are that on 26.11.2020 the deceased Ramesh Rajak, aged 25 years met with an accident. As a result of which, he Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA Signing time: 28-08-2025 15:25:52 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39625 2 MA-1236-2024 sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. The appellants/claimants filed a claim petition for a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lac). After recording evidence, learned Tribunal found that the accident was caused by respondent No.1 (driver) while driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 on the fateful day.
7. Learned Tribunal after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a sum of Rs.12,10,700/- in favour of claimants which was awarded under various heads such as; "loss of dependency - Rs.10,01,700/-, loss of consortium - Rs.1,76,000/-, funeral expenses - Rs.16,500/-, loss of estate Rs.16,500/-. Thus in total amount of Rs.12,10,700/- has been awarded against claim of Rs.50.00 lac. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 was responsible for causing the accident and on the fateful day and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. The only question arises for determination in this appeal is whether the amount awarded by the claim tribunal requires any modification or not?.
8. I have heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. After going through the record and hearing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I find that Tribunal has assessed and awarded the amount on a lower side. The deceased was a graduate and had obtained a degree of B.B.A just before the death, but he has not submitted any such document to show that he was doing a job of Computer Operator in any company or anywhere else. Tribunal assessed the income of Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA Signing time: 28-08-2025 15:25:52 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39625 3 MA-1236-2024 deceased at Rs.6,625/,- per month which seems to be on lower side in the opinion of this Court as per the revised guidelines by M.P. State Legal Service Authority. Accident occurred between 01.10.2020 to 31.03.2021, notional income of unskilled labour is Rs.8,400/- per month and as per judgement of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 he is further entitled to an addition towards 40% future prospectus which comes to Rs.3360/- in total income of deceased as Rs.3360 + Rs.8400/- = Rs.11760/-.
10. In the instant case, evidently the deceased was survived by parents and unmarried sister who are the claimants and he as unmarried by the date of death. Therefore, the number of his dependent family members are four. Accordingly, as per the ruling of Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr, reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 , 50% of the income of the deceased should be deducted towards his personal and living expenses on this aspect, the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma case(supra) at para 30, 31 and 32 are as under:
30. In this context, we may also refer to Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra and another34 which correctly lays down the principle that discipline demanded by a precedent or the disqualification or diminution of a decision on the application of the per incuriam rule is of great importance, since without it, certainty of law, consistency of rulings and comity of courts would become a costly casualty. A decision or judgment can be per incuriam any provision in a statute, rule or regulation, which was not brought to the notice of the court. A decision or judgment can also be per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced judgment of a co- equal or larger Bench. There can be no scintilla of doubt that an earlier decision of co-equal Bench binds the Bench of same strength. Though the judgment in Rajesh's case was delivered on a later date, it had not apprised itself of the law stated in (2014) 16 SCC 623 Reshma Kumari (supra) but had been guided by Santosh Devi (supra). We have no hesitation that it is not a binding precedent on the co-equal Bench.
31. At this stage, a detailed analysis of Sarla Verma (supra) is necessary. In the said case, the Court recapitulated the relevant principles relating to assessment of Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA Signing time: 28-08-2025 15:25:52 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39625 4 MA-1236-2024 compensation in case of death and also took note of the fact that there had been considerable variation and inconsistency in the decision for Courts and Tribunals on account of adopting the method stated in Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co.
Ltd. 35 and the method in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd.36. It also analysed the difference between the considerations of the two different methods by this Court in Susamma Thomas (supra) wherein preference was given to Davies method to the Nance method. Various paragraphs from Susamma Thomas (supra) and Trilok Chandra (supra) have been reproduced and thereafter it has been observed that lack of uniformity and consistency in awarding the compensation has been a matter of grave concern. It has stated that when different tribunals 1951 SC 601 : (1951) 2 All ER 448 (PC) 1942 AC 601 : (1942) 1 All ER 657 (HL) calculate compensation differently on the same facts, the claimant, the litigant and the common man are bound to be confused, perplexed and bewildered. It adverted to the observations made in Trilok Chandra (supra) which are to the following effect:-
"15. We thought it necessary to reiterate the method of working out 'just' compensation because, of late, we have noticed from the awards made by tribunals and courts that the principle on which the multiplier method was developed has been lost sight of and once again a hybrid method based on the subjectivity of the Tribunal/court has surfaced, introducing uncertainty and lack of reasonable uniformity in the matter of determination of compensation. It must be realised that the Tribunal/court has to determine a fair amount of compensation awardable to the victim of an accident which must be proportionate to the injury caused. ..."
32. While adverting to the addition of income for future prospects, it stated thus:-
"24. In Susamma Thomas this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words "actual salary" should be read as "actual salary less tax"). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances."
11. On the overall view of the principles laid down in the above judgement, this Court is of the considered opinion that the monthly income is taken as per Rs.11,760/-, the annual income would be worked out to be Rs.1,41,120/- (Rs.11760x12). 50% of the said amount would be Rs.70,560/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA Signing time: 28-08-2025 15:25:52NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39625 5 MA-1236-2024 . As the deceased was found to be 25 years old at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier would be 18 in view of the principle laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) . Having applied the said principle and multiplier, the loss of dependency would be worked out to Rs.12,70,080/- (Rs.70,560 x 18).
12. This Court finds that the Tribunal has committed an error while awarding compensation under loss of dependency. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.12,70,080/- under the head of "loss of dependency" which would be substantive.
13. On overall reappreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cited decisions, I am of the definite opinion that the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated above and given in the table for easy reference.
Loss of dependency 10,01,700/- 12,70,080/-
Loss of consortium 1,76,000/- 1,76,000/-
Funeral 16,000/- 16,500/-
Loss of Estate 16,500/- 16,500/-
12,09,700 14,79,080/-
Rs.14,79,080/-
-Rs.12,09,700/-
Rs.2,69,380/-
14. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the learned Tribunal warrants interference to enhance the compensation from Rs.12,09,700/- to Rs.14,79,080/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, appeal stands partly allowed Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA Signing time: 28-08-2025 15:25:52 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39625 6 MA-1236-2024 and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein above subject to following conditions:-
i. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the execution can be taken out against him.
ii. The claimants are directed to pay the requisite Court Fee, if required in the present case.
iii. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount with accrued interest and costs, by filing a proper application before the Tribunal.
iv. The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid extent and in terms and directions as above.
v. The record be sent back to the learned Tribunal within three weeks from this day.
vi. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI) JUDGE Jasleen Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA Signing time: 28-08-2025 15:25:52