NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL th ON THE 15 OF OCTOBER 2025 MISC. APPEAL NO. 4271 OF 2010 SMT. LAXMI AHIRWARAND OTHERS Versus RITESH RAI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rajendra Kumar Raghuvanshi, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Pramod Kumar Thakre, Advocate for respondents.

ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the appellants under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 05.07.2010 passed by Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raheli in Claim Case No.77 of 2009.

2. Brief facts of the case are that at the time of accident, the deceased was going on a motorcycle when he was hit by the Auto bearing Registration No. MP-15-T-1732. It is submitted that the said Auto was rashly and negligently being driven by the respondent no. 1 as a result of which Hemraj Ahirwar and one other person died and a lady and a child suffered injuries.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Claims tribunal erred in calculating the annual income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 15,000. It is submitted that the deceased used to do welding work at Crusher and run flour mill. It is submitted that the Claims tribunal erred in holding that since more than 2 persons were sitting on the motorcycle as such there is a contributory negligence to the extent of 30% on the part of driver of the motorcycle.

4. It is further submitted that no evidence has been adduced by the respondents to prove that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. That compensation awarded by the Claims —tribunal is inordinately low under the heads like Rs. 2000/- as funeral expenditure, Rs 2,000 for love and affection. That no amount has been awarded for loss of estate. It is submitted that appellant no. 1 is a young lady of 19 years and inordinately low amount has been awarded for loss of consortium. It is submitted that multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied by the tribunal as the age of the deceased is 21 years. That interest ought to have been awarded @ 8% i.e. the prevalent Bank rate. That the compensation awarded deserves to be substantially enhanced in the interest of justice.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 was responsible for causing the accident and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 on the fateful day. The only question for determination in this appeal is as to whether the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal requires modification or not?

7. After appreciation of evidence adduced by the claimant, learned tribunal has reached the conclusion in para no. 9 of the awards that the deceased was sitting along with one man and one women and one child on the offending motorcycle. Tribunal has also mentioned in the award that no evidence was adduced by the insurance company regarding the contributory negligence of the motorcycle driver. It is also mentioned in the award that the respondent no.1 is negligent to drive the offending vehicle. Learned tribunal has not found any evidence regarding the contributory negligence of the deceased. Learned tribunal has assessed the contributory negligence only on the ground that the four persons were sitting on the motorcycle at the time of incident. In the support of his view, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this court reported as 2007(1) MPWN SN 88 rendered in the case of Kantidevi v/s Om Prakesh.

8. In the case of Mohammed Siddique & another Versus National Insuracne Company Ltd and others passed in Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2020 dated 01.08.2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held.“But the above reason, in our view, is flawed. The fact that the deceased was riding on a motorcycle along with the driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. At the most it would make him guilty of being a party to the vio