This appeal by the claimants under section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act is arising out of the award dated 30.09.2015 passed by

Additional Member MACT, Neemuch in Claim Case No.67/2014

seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the

Tribunal.

2. The date of accident, negligence and the issue of liability are not

in dispute and the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard

3

are also not in question. As per the findings of the Tribunal, for the

death of Prahlad, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of

Rs.6,07,000/- along with interest.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that

Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as

Rs.3,000/- which is on lower side. Tribunal has held deceased to be

unskilled labour, therefore, monthly income of deceased should have

been assessed/determined as per circular/notification issued under

the Minimum Wages Act, 1948/Guidelines issued by M.P.State

Legal Services Authority. In this connection learned counsel for the

appellants/claimants has relied on the judgments in the case of

Sapna and others Vs. Mangilal and another 2021 ACJ 957,

Bhimsingh Vs. Jagmelsingh and another M.A.No.5350/2022

decided on 07.07.2023, Shankar and others Vs. Dinesh and

others M.A.No.2057/2021 decided on 08.09.2023, Sohanlal and

others Vs. Noorsingh and others M.A.No.7014/2019 decided on

22.08.202023, Smt. Nirmala and others Vs. Gudia and others

M.A.no.4193/2019 decided on 07.11.2023.

As per para 1 of AW-1, all the claimants are dependent on the

deceased. There is nothing in the cross examination of above witness

that claimants were not dependent on deceased. Thus, in the absence

of any rebuttal, all claimants should be considered as dependant on

deceased. As in the instant case, there are six dependants on

deceased, hence, 1/4^th should be deducted for personal expenses and

not 1/3^rd as deducted by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that for

the purpose of consortium, grand parents should be considered to be

included in “parents” and sister should be included for the purpose

4

of consortium under the head of filial consortium. In this connection

he has relied on judgment in the case of Magma General Insurance

Co.Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram and others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782

wherein consortium has been awarded to sister.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that

directions issued by the M.P.State Legal Services Authority are only

meant for the purpose of Lok Adalat and they are not binding on this

Court while deciding the case on merits. Deceased was resident of

village and incident occurred in the year 2014 and in the year 2014,

minimum wages fixed for industrial labour were Rs.3070/- per

month. It is also urged that while calculating minimum basic

pay/income, dearness allowance and perks are not to be included.

Only in the case of industrial labour, dearness allowance and perks

can be included while calculating the monthly income. It is further

submitted that father of the deceased is aged 43 years, therefore,

father as well as grandparents/sister of deceased cannot be

considered as dependent on deceased. Only rest of the three can be

considered to be dependent on deceased. Hence, 1/3^rd deducted by

Tribunal for personal expenses is correct. It is also urged that grand

parents and sister are not entitled for consortium. In the instance

case, principle laid down in the case of Nanu Ram (Supra) does not

apply. In this connection learned counsel for the Insurance Company

has referred to para 8 of the case of Nanu Ram (Supra) whereas it is

mentioned that “looking to the facts and circumstances of the case”.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of

the case.

Principles regarding determination of income:-

5

7.

So far as calculation of actual income/established income for

determining compensation is concerned, where there is documentary

evidence to prove the income or Tribunal finds it otherwise proved

from evidence on re