Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 997
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
G. S. Ahluwalia, J.
Smt. Mamta Patel (Verma) And Others – Appellants
Versus
Ramkumar And Others – Respondents
Misc. Appeal No. 211 of 2019
Decided On : 24-04-2025
For the Appellant :Shri Bhagwan Das Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri Badri Nath Malhotra, Advocate
Claimants are entitled to future prospects even when income is assessed on a notional basis. The total compensation must include fair allowances for spousal, parental, and filial consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses to satisfy the requirement of providing just and reasonable compensation.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) - Fatal accident - Enhancement of compensation - Future prospects - Where income is assessed on a notional basis, claimants are entitled to the addition of future prospects, determined at 40% for a victim aged thirty-two years. (Para 7)
(B) Compensation - Consortium and allied heads - Claimants are entitled to compensation under the distinct heads of spousal, parental, and filial consortium, alongside loss of estate and funeral expenses, to ensure the award constitutes just and reasonable compensation for the loss sustained. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The appellants filed an appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the tribunal for the death of a relative in a motor vehicle accident. The appellants contested the exclusion of future prospects from the income calculation, the limitation of consortium to only one claimant, and the omission of compensation for the loss of estate.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that future prospects are a mandatory component of compensation calculation, even when the deceased's income is determined on a notional basis. By applying a 40% addition for future prospects for a victim aged thirty-two, and incorporating standard heads for consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, the court concluded that the initial award was inadequate.
Issues: The main issues were the applicability of future prospects to notional income, the correct entitlement of multiple consortium heads, and the justification for excluding certain pecuniary loss heads from the initial tribunal award.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the assessment of just compensation necessitates the inclusion of future prospects for all victims, regardless of employment status. Furthermore, standard legal conventions regarding familial consortium and pecuniary losses must be applied consistently to ensure the total award reflects the actual dependency loss.
Result: Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced by four lakh rupees.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of undisputed factual background of the accident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contentions regarding future prospects and employment status. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. assessment of future prospects and dependency calculations. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. formalization of compensation enhancement and final award modification. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER :
G. S. AHLUWALIA, J.
This Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed against Award dated 26.10.2017 passed by II Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (M.P.) in Claim Case No. No.400272/2015.
2. This appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation amount.
3. Since the factum of accident is not in dispute, therefore, it is suffice to mention here that deceased Jitendra Patel met with a vehicular accident on 07.09.2015, as a result he sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to Primary Health Centre, Gursarai where he was declared dead by the doctors.
4. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, it is submitted by counsel for appellants that Claims Tribunal has not awarded future prospects. The age of deceased was 32 years, therefore, the claimants were entitled to future prospects at the rate of 40%. It is further submitted that although the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium to appellant No.1 but in fact all the appellants were entitled to spousal, parental and filial consortium. It is further submitted that although the amount of Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses but nothing has been awarded towards loss of estate.
5. Per contra, the appeal has been vehemently opposed by counsel for Insurance Company. It is submitted that since the claimants have failed to prove that deceased was employed as a driver, therefore, future prospects were rightly not granted.
6. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.
7. As the Claims Tribunal is required to assess notional income of the deceased, then the claimants are also entitled to future prospects. In the present case, age of deceased was 32 years, therefore, future prospects at the rate of 40% should have been granted by the Claims Tribunal. Although under the customary heads an excessive amount has been granted by the Claims Tribunal but even if the said mistake is corrected, the compensation amount would not be reduced, therefore, it is held that the claimants/appellants are entitled to the following compensation amount:
| S.No. | Head | Amount payable to Appellant (In Rupees) |
| 1. | Monthly Income of the deceased | 10,000 |
| 2. | Yearly Income | 1,20,000 |
| 3. | Future Prospects @ 40% | 48,000 |
| 4. | Yearly Income of deceased | 1,68,000 |
| 5. | Personal Expenses 1/4 | 42,000 |
| 6. | Yearly loss of dependency | 1,26,000 |
| 7. | Total loss of dependency 126000x16 | 20,16,000 |
| 8. | Loss of consortium 40,000 X 5 | 2,00,000 |
| 9. | Loss of Estate | 15,000 |
| 10 | Funeral Expenses | 15,000 |
| 11. | Total compensation amount | 22,46,000 |
| 12. | Compensation awarded by Tribunal | 15,65,000 |
| 13. | Enhanced by | 6,81,000 |
8. Since appellants have valued this appeal at Rs.4,00,000/-, therefore the compensation amount is enhanced by Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Only) Other conditions of award shall remain the same.
9. With aforesaid modification, Award dated 26.10.2017 passed by II Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (M.P.) in Claim Case No. No.400272/2015 is hereby affirmed.
