IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI

th

ON THE 10 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 2456 of 2019 SMT. SANGITA BAI AND OTHERS Versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS Appearance:

Ms. Meenu Rajput, advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Harbansh Singh Rajpal, learned counsel for the appellants.

Shri Sudarshan Pandit, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].

ORDER The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act being aggrieved by the award dated 17.12.2018 passed in MACC No.62620/2017 challenging quantum of compensation.

2. The liability of insurance company is not under dispute.

3. The relevant facts of case are that on 22.07.2016 at around 02.30 in the after noon, Badrilal was going by his motorcycle to his home at Kasrawad from vilalge-Chichlaay. When he reached near Dongar square at Indore- Kasrawad Road, a bus bearing registration No.MP09-FA-1881 came from the side of Khargone. The driver of the said vehicle was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, it came and rammed into the motorcycle of Badrilal because of which he sustained grievous injuries. He was rushed to government hospital, Khargone where he died during treatment.

4. The appellants/claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of Badrilal. The claims tribunal recorded evidence and on the evaluation of the same concluded that the appellants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.6,78,400/-.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claims tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim of income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. She submits that Ex.P-11 was adduced in the evidence for demonstrating that the deceased was taking government contracts for welding work. It has also been stated that the deceased was running a shop of welding work. In support of which Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10 documents were adduced. She further submits that in view of the aforesaid documents the income of the deceased should have been taken at Rs.15000/- per month. She further submits that in any case, the deceased could not have been treated as an unskilled labourer looking to the fact that he was working as a welder. At least, his income should have been treated at par with the minimum wages prescribed for a skilled labourer. Apart from the above, she also argued that no amount of compensation has been awarded for loss of consortium to three children. Only the wife has been awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- under this head. She thus prays for enhancement of compensation.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company refers to the findings recorded by the claims tribunal in para 18 and 19 of the impugned award and submits that the appellant No.1 Sangita appeared before the claims tribunal as AW-1 and in her cross-examination she has admitted that there is no document with respect to the government contracts taken by the deceased. It was also admitted by her that the shop of welding was in the name of Sachin, her son. He thus points out that even it was not established before the tribunal that the deceased was working as a welder. He further points out that the in para 23 of the award, the tribunal has added 30% under the head of future prospects which should have been 25% in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (16) SCC 680. He thus prays for reduction of the amount of compensation.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. So far as the question of income of the deceased is concerned, on perusal of the record it is seen that there is no document at all to prove that the deceased was working as a welder. The shop which was claimed to be the shop of the deceased was run in the name of Sachin Welding Work and the electricity bill of the same was also in the name of