Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kavita vs Mukram Khan on 12 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4558
1 MA-1325-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 12 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 1325 of 2018
SMT. KAVITA AND OTHERS
Versus
MUKRAM KHAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sourabh Neema - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Monesh Jindal - Advocate for the respondent No. 3.
ORDER
This Misc. Appeal has been filed against the impugned award dated 06.12.2017 passed in Claim Case No. 78/2016 whereby an amount of Rs.12,64,600/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimants/survivors of the deceased Mahendrasingh Makbana.
02. Claimants case is that deceased Mahendrasingh, aged about 32 years was having transportation business and earning Rs.40-45,000/-. On 01.01.2016 at about 6 am in the morning in Maruti Van No. R.J. 06 U.A. 3938 he was going from Ratlam to his own village Palkhanda, nearby Bilpank Tolnaka, Toll Office on Mhow-Neemuch Road, one Container No. H.R. 55 Q 2489 driven rashly and negligently dashed Maruti van from backside wherein deceased suffered grievous injuries and met with an unfortunate death on the spot. Thereafter incident was reported to the Police Station and survivors of the deceased filed claim petition on various grounds including that the transport business operated by the deceased has come to an end, therefore, compensation of Rs.97,25,000/- was prayed for. This claim case was contested by the insurance company and after affording Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 13-02-2026 18:37:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4558 2 MA-1325-2018 opportunity of hearing adduced evidence by both sides, impugned award has been passed which is under challenge in this appeal.
03. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased, aged about 30 years was owner of 2 trucks and also operating transport business and the certificate of registration thereof is Ex.P/13 & P/14. He further submits that he was paying monthly premium of finance taken for purchasing the truck i.e. Rs.31000/- per month and also maintaining 5 persons of his family members and also having pan card Ex.P/15. On these counts, learned counsel submits that income of the deceased should have been taken Rs.40,000/- per month as claimed whereas learned Claims Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased as Rs.6000/- only which is a meager amount and not based in any reasonable grounds. To buttress his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in para 4 to 6 of Saroj & Ors. vs. Gajanand & Ors. 2025 (3) TAC Page 18 S.C., para 7 of Sundari Devi vs. Ramsingh & Ors. 2026(1) TAC Page 67 S.C. , paras 8 & 9 of Gurpreet Kaur & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Com. Ltd. 2022 (4) TAC Page 388 S.C. , para 25 of Jakir Hussain vs. Dinesh & Ors. 2015 ACJ Page 961 M.P. , paras 19 to 21 of Sharmila Singh vs. Rabin Ghosh & Anr. 2010 ACJ Page 1428, para 6 & 7 of Sushma H.R. & Anr. vs. Deepak Kumar Jha & Ors. 2023 ACJ Page 331 S.C. He further submits that one of his sons is a mentally challenged and he was also bearing expenses for his treatment. He further submits that all the six survivors should have been awarded consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each. On these premises, learned counsel prays for enhancement of the award amount.
04. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that from perusal of the record, it is apparent that transport business continued to operate even after the demise of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 13-02-2026 18:37:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4558 3 MA-1325-2018 deceased as loan account was duly repaid and subsequently closed. Even after death of the deceased, EMI amount was paid by the survivors/claimants. Trucks are in existence, therefore, income of the deceased cannot be assessed on the basis of the expenditure which has been shown by the claimants. The deceased was doing only supervisory work and, therefore, his income of supervisor can be taken for assessing the award amount. On the date of the accident, income of skilled labouerer was Rs.8,435/- that can only be assessed and on these grounds prays for modifying the impugned award. To buttress his submissions, he has placed reliance on paras 7 & 8 of State of Haryana & Anr. vs. Jasbir & Ors. 2003 ACJ 1800 (SC) and para 6 & 7 of Ponnumany & Anr. vs. V.A. Mohanan & Ors. 2008 SC 544 .
Heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
05. From perusal of the record, it is proved that the deceased was owner of 2 Trucks as it is evident in Ex.P/13 & P/14 which are registration cards of Truck No. M.P. 09 GE 8857 and M.P. 09 GE 7661 registered in the name of Mahendrasingh S/o Hate Singh. Driving license of heavy transport vehicle issued in the name of deceased Mahendrasingh is also on record as Ex.P/15 along with pan card of deceased Ex.P/16. Even though wife of deceased Kavita has stated before the Court that after the death of the deceased income of the family has diminished as she is suffering from economic crisis. It is undisputed that all the loan amounts have been wholly paid even after death of the deceased, therefore, it cannot be concluded that income of the family after the death of the deceased came to an halt.
06. In the case of Saroj (supra) where deceased was owner and driver of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 13-02-2026 18:37:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4558 4 MA-1325-2018 the truck and was paying installment of Rs.21,252/-, income was assessed as Rs.40,000/-, but in the instant case business income by operating truck and transport business has not been proved to be diminished, therefore, this judgment will not be applicable in the present case. In the case of Sundari Devi (supra) income of the deceased has been taken as Rs.15,000/-. In the case of Gurpreet Kaur (supra), income of the deceased, who was contractor was taken as Rs.25,000/- per month, but it is distinguishable on facts. Similarly, case of Jakir Hussain (supra) is also distinguishable.
0 7 . Looking to the fact that deceased was owner of the trucks and also driving one of the truck, his income can be assessed at least Rs.20,000/- per month. Loss of income of the family after death of the deceased can be assessed Rs.20,000/- for maintaining business and also hiring driver for operating the truck which deceased was operating. Accordingly, income of the deceased is assessed to Rs.20,000/-. Learned Claims Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective. Hence, income assessed is raised to Rs.20,000/-. Deceased was in between 31-35 years and was maintaining six persons, therefore, in the heads of personal expenses, 1/4th will be deducted and 40% of income should be added in the head of future prospects and multiplier of 16 will be applied.
08. Accordingly, the just and proper compensation comes as under:
Rs.20,000/- per month + Rs.8000/- (40% Future Loss of Prospects) = Rs.28,000/- (-) Rs.7000/- (Deducted Dependency: 1/4th Personal Expenses) = Rs.21,000/- x 12 = Rs.2,52,000/- x 16 (Multiplier) =Rs.40,32,000/- Loss of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 6) Consortium:
Loss of Estate: Rs.15,000/-
Funeral Expenses: Rs.15,000/-
Total: Rs.43,02,000/-
MACT Award: (-)Rs.12,64,600/-
Award reduced by: Rs.30,37,400/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 13-02-2026
18:37:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4558
5 MA-1325-2018
09. Thus, the amount is enhanced and appellants / claimants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs.30,37,400/- over and above the amount, which has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
10. Appellants/claimants are required to pay requisite court fees as per the prevailing slab on the enhanced amount by adjusting the earlier court fee, if already paid, within a period of 30 days, thereafter, the same will be disbursed to the appellants/claimants. It is made clear, in case the court fees is not paid within the stipulated period, the appellants/claimants will not be entitled for claiming interest on the enhanced amount beyond 30 days' period till filing of requisite court fee.
11. Resultantly, appeal is allowed and disposed off to the extent herein above indicated. The other terms and conditions including interest part of the impugned award shall remain intact.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE soumya Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 13-02-2026 18:37:50