IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 7 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. APPEAL No. 684 of 2010

SMT.SURINDRA DHAVAN AND OTHERS

Versus

VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Arun Sharma - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Arvind Kumar Agrawal- Advocate for respondent No.3.

ORDER Rs.2,79,500/- was awarded along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

1. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant

under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the Award dated 15.01.2010 passed by First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the Court of Third Additional Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) (in short "the Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No.67/2009 on account of inadequacy of compensation amount and seeking enhancement of

compensation.

2. The date of accident, issue of negligence and the liability of the

respondents are not in dispute. The findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal in

this regard are not in question.

3. As per the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal, in the case of

death of Kapil Dhawan in the motor accident, compensation to the tune of

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the Claims Tribunal committed a manifest error in assessing the income of the deceased, which is on the lower side. It is further submitted that the deceased, Kapil Dhawan, was a third- year student of ITM College, Sithouli, Gwalior, having completed his second year of MCA. He had been selected by Satyam Computer Services, Hyderabad, with an annual package of Rs.3,00,000/- and had bright future prospects with the potential to earn up to Rs.6,00,000/- per annum. However, the Claims Tribunal ignored these material aspects and assessed the income of the deceased at only Rs.3,000/- per month, which is arbitrary and requires interference. It was further contended that the Claims Tribunal failed to award future prospects and just compensation under conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses. Hence, a prayer has been made for enhancement of the compensation by awarding a just and reasonable amount.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 supported the impugned Award and submitted that the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation on the basis of the evidence available on record. It is contended that the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 7. On perusal of the evidence adduced by the claimants, it is evident that they could not produce documentary proof to establish the exact income of the deceased or to show that he was engaged in skilled employment at the time of the accident. However, it is equally undisputed that the deceased was a young student pursuing the MCA course, a professional qualification with substantial employment potential. His educational background clearly indicates that he possessed specialized technical skills and was on the verge of entering the job market. In such circumstances, the notional income assessed by the Claims Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month appears to be unrealistically low and not in consonance with prevailing economic conditions at the relevant time.

8. Considering the educational qualifications of the deceased, his age, the nature of the professional course pursued by him, and the reasonable expectation of earning capacity of an MCA graduate, this Court is of the considered opinion that the monthly income of the deceased deserves to be reassessed. Even in the absence of strict documentary proof, courts are required to adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach to ensure just compensation. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is reasonably assessed at Rs.5,000/- per month at the time of the accident, instead of Rs.3,000/- per month as assessed by the Claims Tribunal.

9. As regards loss of incom