Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deceased Rajaram Through Lrs Basu vs Anil on 8 April, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9615
1 MA-2713-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 8 th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 2713 of 2021
DECEASED RAJARAM THROUGH LRS BASU AND OTHERS
Versus
ANIL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Himanshu Paliwal - advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Jain, learned counsel for the respondent [R-3].
Heard on : 28.03.2025
Pronounced on : 08.04.2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the claimant under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is arising out of the award dated 09.08.2021, passed by 1st Additional Member MACT, Manawar, Dhar in Claim Case No.173/2017 seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.12.2016 the deceased Rajaram was walking back towards his home from work on safe side, and the moment he reached Indore road, Tonki Fata, driver of motorcycle bearing Regn. No.MP-11-MR-1597 driving the vehicle rashly and negligently came behind the deceased and dashed him due to which the deceased fell down, suffered grievous injuries and died during the treatment.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-04-2025 17:53:12NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9615 2 MA-2713-2021
3. As per the findings of the Tribunal, for the death of deceased, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,85,104/-.
4. The Tribunal while awarding the amount of compensation for the death of deceased, has considered the entire evidence placed on record and after recording evidence Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,85,104/- in the following heads:
Loss of dependency Rs.5,20,104/-
Income taken as Rs.5000 x 12 x13x 2/3
Loss of consortium Rs.16,500/-
Medical Expenses Rs.1,32,000/-
Loss of companionship Rs.16,500/-
TOTAL Rs.6,84,104/-
Round off figure Rs.6,84,000/-
5 . Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and proper amount of compensation in the case as the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side hence, liable to be appropriately modified. The interest of 9% is also on very low as per settled law on this point. The Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding compensation under the head of future prospects keeping in view the verdict of the apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi - 2017 ACJ 2700, in which it is held that every dependent is entitled for consortium, hence, the view of learned Trial Court regarding single consortium is also perverse. Since the deceased was aged about 50 years, 25% of future prospectus should be added. So far as the income is concerned, the learned Tribunal has taken notional income as Rs.5,000/- per month which is not in accordance with minimum wages Act, since the minimum wages of Rs.6,950/-, it should be calculated on the basis of minimum wages of Rs.6,950/- per month and after deductions the tribunal calculated loss of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-04-2025 17:53:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9615 3 MA-2713-2021 dependency as Rs.5,20,104/- which is also incorrect. Hence counsel prayed for awarding just and proper amount of compensation in the case, so also prayed that the findings of the tribunal regarding pay and recover be kept intact.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for Insurance Company as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have argued in support of the impugned Award and contended that Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation amount in the case, which does not call for any interference by this Court.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and also the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others (2041),Kirti and Another v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166 and Pranay Sethi (Supra) I find substance in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants.
9. Certainly, in this case, the claimants have not produced any evidence regarding income. However, it is well settled that the income of claimant can be awarded on the basis of minimum wages prescribed by the State. In this regard, paragraph No.11 of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kirti and Another (Supra) , is condign to quote here:-
II. Assessment of monthly income "11. Second, although it is correct that the claimants have been unable to produce any document evidencing Vinod's income, nor have they established his employment as a teacher; but that doesn't justify adoption of the lowest tier of minimum wage while Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-04-2025 17:53:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9615 4 MA-2713-2021 computing his income. From the statement of witnesses, documentary evidence on record and circumstances of the accident, it is apparent that Vinod was comparatively more educationally qualified and skilled. Further, he maintained a reasonable standard of living for his family as evidenced by his use of a 7 motorcycle for commuting. Preserving the existing standard of living of a deceased's family is a fundamental endeavour of motor accident compensation law.Thus, at the very least, the minimum wage of Rs 6197 as applicable to skilled workers during April 2014 in the State of Haryana ought to be applied in his case."
10. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, the matter has been considered. As per the minimum wages prescribed by the National Income Chart and the evidence available on record, it would be appropriate to enhance the notional income from Rs.5000/- to Rs.6950/- per month. Since, the age of deceased is, undisputedly, 50 years at the time of incident, in view of Pranay Sethi (Supra) 25% future prospect should be added in his income. As such, the yearly income of deceased after deduction of loss of dependency @ 1/3 would be considered as Rs.83400/- (Rs.6950/- x12) (25% F.P.)-1/3 X13 = Rs.9,03,500/- per year.
11. That apart, the order of learned trial Court with regard to the head of consortium amount, is also perverse in light of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (Supra) . Hence, it will be appropriate to apply multiplier of three as there are three dependents of the deceased i.e. Rs.44,000/-x 3= 1,32,000/- under the head of Consortium. Loss of estate and funeral expenses are taken as Rs.16,500/- under each head.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be modified as under:
HEAD AMOUNT Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-04-2025 17:53:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9615 5 MA-2713-2021 Income taken Rs.6950+(25% F.P.) = Rs. 8687.50 per month x 12 = Rs.104,250/- (per year) Personal Expenses -1/3 = Rs.34,750/- per year Loss of dependency 2/3 -Rs.69,500/- per year Multiplier 13 - Rs.69,500/- x 13= 9,03,500/- Loss of consortium -Rs.44,000 x 3 = 1,32,000/- Loss of estate = Rs.16,500/- Funeral expenses -Rs.16,500/- ------------------ TOTAL Rs.10,68,500/-
13. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant case is Rs.10,68,500/- as against the award of the Tribunal of Rs.6,85,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to an additional sum of Rs.3,83,500/- over and above the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal.
14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount by a sum of Rs.3,83,500/-. Considering the defence of the insurance company, it would be that at first the compensation be paid subject to furnishing the security by the owner/driver and then the same shall be recovered.
15. The enhanced amount shall carry interest as fixed by the learned Claims Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-04-2025 17:53:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9615 6 MA-2713-2021 Tribunal from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The said amount be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Rest of conditions as imposed by learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.
16. If the enhanced amount of compensation is in excess to the valuation of appeal, the difference of the Court fee (if not already paid) shall be deposited by the appellants- claimants within a period of one month and proof thereof, shall be submitted before the Registry. Thereafter, the Registry shall issue the certified copy of the order passed today.
PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE sumathi Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-04-2025 17:53:12