Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Kumar vs Ramesh Kumar Dwivedi on 10 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51463
1 MA-538-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 10th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 538 of 2010
NARENDRA KUMAR
Versus
RAMESH KUMAR DWIVEDI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri S.P. Mishra - Advocate for the appellant.
Respondent No.2 through counsel.
ORDER
The instant appeal has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved with award dated 28.04.2005 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mauganj, District- Rewa in Claim Case No.80/2004 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.55,000/- to the claimant on account of death of his son- Rajneesh who was aged about 10 years.
2. Facts of the case in short are that on 21.01.2001, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle i.e. Bus bearing Registration No.MP-19-D-0700 registered in the name of Madhya Pradesh State Transport Corporation. The deceased was dashed by the offending vehicle while standing near the road.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding the compensation. The learned Tribunal has wrongly held that the income of deceased-child cannot be assessed whereas Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 10-10-2025 17:25:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51463 2 MA-538-2010 it has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the case of child death, the income of child can be assessed upto Rs.30,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal has also awarded meager amount under other conventional heads.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant submitting that the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation and no interference is required.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. On perusal of impugned award, it appears that the respondents have remained ex-parte before the learned Tribunal despite being served through paper publication. In the instant appeal, the respondent No.2 is represented. The respondents have not made any effort to get the ex-parte impugned order set-aside by way of appropriate proceedings. It has become undisputed that the incident occurred due to negligence committed by respondent No.1, which resulted into death of 10 years old son of appellant/claimant. The learned Tribunal has not assessed the income of deceased child and considering the overall circumstances, awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
7. In respect of child death case in a motor accident, law has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various pronouncement viz. Kishan Gopal & Another Vs. Lala & Others reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 a n d Thangavel & Others Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation & Others passed in Civil Appeal No.3395 of 2024 , holding that the income of deceased child can be considered as Rs.30,000/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 10-10-2025 17:25:25NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51463 3 MA-538-2010 per annum and there should be no deduction under the head of personal expenses. Therefore, after applying the law laid-down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 4 ACJ 270 and Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Others reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the claimant is entitled to get the compensation as under:-
Amount of Head Compensation (in Rupees) Loss of Dependency (30,000*15 = 4,50,000/- + 40% Future Prospects 6,30,000/-
= 1,80,000/- = 6,30,000/-)
Loss of Consortium 40,000/-
Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
Loss of Estate 15,000/-
Total 7,00,000/-
8. Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled to get the compensation amount of Rs.7,00,000/- in place of Rs.55,000/-. The enhanced amount i.e. Rs.6,45,000/- shall also carry the same interest as has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. The rest of conditions imposed by the learned Tribunal be as it is.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal stands allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove subject to following conditions :-
"i. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which the execution can be initiated against them.
ii. The claimant is directed to pay the requisite Court-fee, if required in Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 10-10-2025 17:25:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51463
4 MA-538-2010 the present case. Office is also directed to verify the fact as to whether any Court-fee is payable in the case; If yes, then the same may be intimated to the counsel for the appellant.
iii. On such deposit, the claimant would be permitted to withdraw the amount with accrued interest, by filing a proper application before the learned Tribunal.
iv. The record be sent back to learned Tribunal within three weeks from this day.
v. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI) JUDGE Prachi Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 10-10-2025 17:25:25