IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH th ON THE 13 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 MISC. APPEAL No. 3427 of 2018 BETWEEN:-

SMT. KRISHNABAI W/O MAHESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE 13, WARD NO.14, MOH.

1.

BADI BAKHAL (GANDHI MARG) SATWAS ROAD KANNOD (MADHYA PRADESH)

MANISH S/O MAHESH KUMAR MARKAM, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O 13, WARD NO.-14, MOH.

2.

BADI BAKHAL (GANDHI MARG), SATWAS ROAD, (MADHYA PRADESH)

RAHUL S/O MAHESH KUMAR MARKAN, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDYING R/O - 13, WARD NO.- 14

3.

MOH. BADI BAKHAL, (GANDHI MARG), SATWAS ROAD, KANNOD, (MADHYA PRADESH)

SMT. PANCHUBAI W/O HAJARILAL MARKAM, AGED ABOUT

4. 70 YEARS, R/O WARD NO.-14, MOH. BADI BAKHAL (GANDHI MARG), SATWAS ROAD, KANNOD, (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS (SHRI MANISH JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS)

AND TIKAMSINGH S/O MR. DATAR SINGH OCCUPATION: DRIVER

1. VIKAS NAGAR DEWAS/ 203, NAVNEET DARSHAN OLD PALASIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

MS. SWASTIK INFRATEC THROUGH PROP. R/O 203, NAVNEET

2.

DARSHAN, OLD PALASIA, (MADHYA PRADESH)

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE

3.

APOLLO TOWER-2, M.G. ROAD, (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI SUDHIR DANDWATE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:-

O R D E R

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is arising out of award dated 03.02.2018 passed by Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim Case No.139/2018 on account of inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

(2) The date of accident, negligence and the issue of liability is not in dispute, however the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard is not in question. As per the finding of the Tribunal in the case of death of deceased - Mahesh Kumar Markam and the amount of compensation has been allowed by Tribunal is Rs.26,54,000/- with interest from the date of filing of claim application till its realization.

(3) Counsel for the appellants has filed this appeal on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the compensation after considering only 15% of future prospects in the salary of deceased and it ought to have assessed the same as 30% as per settled principles of law. That the findings regarding the dependents, future prospects, deduction in salary and its dependency and consideration of future prospects is 15% only which are misconceived and perverse being against the positive evidence on record. He further submits that the Tribunal has committed error in deducting1/3 amount for personal expenses. He argued that 1/4 amount be deducted for personal expenses and multiplier applied must be 13 instead of 11. Hence, prays for just and proper compensation to the claimants/appellants.

(4) Per contra, counsel for the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company contended that Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and has argued in support of the findings recorded by the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

(5) I have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.

(6) It is an undisputed fact that the date of birth of deceased was 05.07.1965 and the date of incident is 07.12.2015 and hence it is clear that at the time of accident, the age of deceased was 50 years

05 months.

(7) Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in applying the multiplier of 11 instead of 13. He submits that as per the verdict of Sarla Verma case, 13 multiplier is applicable for 46-50 years of age and 11 multiplier is applicable for 51 to 55 years of age. He submits that if the deceased was 51 years old then 13 multiplier would be applicable and if the age of deceased was below than 50 years and 06 months then 13 multiplier would be applicable and if the age of deceased was above 50 years and 06 months, then 11 multiplier would be applicable. Hence, the Tribunal has committed error while ap