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

th

ON THE 9 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 7115 of 2023 SMT. DROPATI DEVI AND OTHERS Versus OMPRAKASH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Hemant Kumar Vaishnav, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Mayank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent [R-3].

ORDER The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act being aggrieved by the award dated 08.10.2023 passed in claim case No.83/2022 whereby challenging the quantum of compensation.

2. The liability of the insurance company arising out of the accident due to insured vehicle is not under dispute.

3. The short facts of the case are that on 08.09.2021, deceased Rameshchandra was going by his motorcycle number MP43-EF-7518 to Dhamnaar. At around 11.15 a.m., the respondent No.1 came riding his motorcycle bearing registration number MP14-NE-7701 in rash and negligent manner and dashed into the motorcycle of Rameshchandra because of which he sustained grievous injuries. He was rushed to district hospital, Mandsaur 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 Rameshchandra. The claims tribunal after recording evidence concluded that the appellants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.25,16,175/-. However, the Tribunal attributed 25% contributory negligence to the deceased.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claims tribunal has erred in attributing 25% contributing negligence to deceased Rameshchandra. He submits that negligence of Rameshchandra was not proved by leading evidence by any of the respondents, hence, merely on the basis of spot map of the accident, the negligence could not have been attributed to Rameshchandra. He also submits that the claims tribunal has incorrectly deducted 50% under the head of personal expenses from the income of the deceased as he was a married person and the claimants are two sons and widow of the deceased, hence, 1/3rd should have been deducted in the said head. He also submits that that the multiplier of 7 has incorrectly been applied by the tribunal considering the fact that the tribunal itself has concluded in para 18 that the deceased on the date of accident was 60 years and 8 months old, thus, in view of the law as laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3104, multiplier of 9 should have been applied. Apart from this, he lastly submits that the amount of consortium has not been paid to all the three claimants and only to the widow an amount of Rs.40,000/- has been paid. He thus prays for enhancement of compensation accordingly.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company points out by referring to para 11 to 13 of the impugned award that not only that the collision was head on but also there was an F.I.R. against the deceased Rameshchandra lodged by rider of other vehicle. The documents against Rameshchandra were duly brought on record which were admitted by AW-2 Gopal in his deposition before the court. He also admitted that there was head on collision between two motorcycles. Specific findings have been recorded by the claims tribunal with respect to negligence on the part of the deceased. He submits that the criminal case against the deceased was closed only owing to the fact that he has died and not otherwise.

7. As regards the deduction at 1/3rd, he submits that tribunal has correctly deducted 50% under the head of personal expenses. He refers to the findings recorded by the claims tribunal in para 21 of the impugned award and points out that two major sons are not only married, they were of the age 31 and 29 years at the time of accident. They both were independently employed. One of them was a governments servant and other one was an agriculturist, thus, the claims tribuna