IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 6 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. APPEAL No. 589 of 2017

VEERENDRA SINGH LODHI @ VEERENDRA KUMAR LODHI

Versus

MUKESH SONI AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Rinkesh Goyal - Advocate for the appellant/claimant.

Shri Kamal Kumar Rochalani-Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance

Company.

ORDER interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

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 13/01/2017 passed by the Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karera, District Shivpuri (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 66/2015, on the ground of inadequacy of

compensation and seeking enhancement thereof.

2. The date of accident, the issue of negligence, and the liability of the respondents are not in dispute. The findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal on

these aspects are not under challenge.

3. As per the findings of the Claims Tribunal, the appellant/claimant sustained 70% permanent disability due to the injuries suffered in the motor accident. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.7,99,200/- along with

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the claimant. It is submitted that the appellant is a young shuttering expert who used to manage shuttering work in buildings and flats and, therefore, was a skilled labourer. However, the Claims Tribunal wrongly assessed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.5,500/-, which is on the lower side. It is further submitted that due to 70% permanent disability, the claimant is unable to perform shuttering work as well as agricultural work and has become unemployed, thereby suffering throughout his life. It is also contended that the appellant presently spends Rs.10,000/- per month on a helper and that the doctor has advised an operation in the near future, the estimated cost of which is approximately Rs.2,00,000/-. However, the learned Claims Tribunal did not consider these aspects. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned award be suitably modified and just and reasonable compensation be awarded by reassessing the income and other relevant heads in accordance with law.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal.

7. From perusal of the record, it is found that the accident occurred on 15/04/2015. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant used to do shuttering work in buildings and flats and, therefore, was a skilled labourer earning Rs.8,400/- per month. However, the Claims Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.5,500/- per month, which is on the lower side.

8. From perusal of the evidence of the claimant, it is found that the claimant was unable to produce any substantial documentary evidence to prove that he was a skilled labourer or to establish his income.

9. In view of the judgments in Sukhdevi v. Devendra Kumar, ILR 2014 MP 172; Kanwar Devi v. Bansal Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182; and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Renu Devi, (2008) 3 ACC 134, when documentary proof of income is lacking, the income is required to be assessed as per the Minimum Wages Act.

10. In the present case, the claimant failed to produce any cogent or substantial documentary evidence to establish that he was a skilled labourer at the time of the accident. Therefore, his income is required to be assessed on the basis that he was an unskilled labourer. In accordance with the Minimum Wages Act, the monthly income of an unskilled labourer is assessable at Rs.6,239/-. Accordingly, the income of the claimant is assessed at Rs