IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 12 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. APPEAL No. 978 of 2022

SATYAPAL SINGH @ SATPAL BHADORIYA

Versus

MUKESH KUMAR JOSHI AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Ms. Meena Singhal - Advocate for the appellant/claimant.

Shri Anand Vinod Bhardwaj-Advocate for respondent No.2/Oriental

Insurance Company Ltd.

ORDER accident. The Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,16,287/- along with 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 22.01.2022 passed by the Tenth Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 1473/2019, on the ground of

inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement thereof.

2. The date of accident, negligence of the offending vehicle, and the liability of the respondents are not in dispute. The findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal on these aspects have attained finality and are not under

challenge in the present appeal.

3. As per the findings of the Claims Tribunal, the appellant/claimant sustained 15% permanent disability due to the injuries suffered in the motor

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the present appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the claimant as well as in assessing the loss of income on account of permanent disability. It was contended that the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries, namely, a severe fracture of the patella bone of the right leg, a severe fracture of the humerus bone of the right hand, a severe fracture of the right iliac bone, fracture with displacement of the acetabulum, and deep and lacerated wounds over other parts of the body. It was further submitted that the claimant underwent surgery and remained hospitalized from 23.10.2019 to 01.11.2019, incurring medical expenses of approximately Rs.1,25,000/-.It was further contended that Dr. R.K. Agarwal (A.W.5) issued a permanent disability certificate (Ex.107-C), assessing permanent disability at 45%, but the Claims Tribunal assessed the loss of income by considering only 15% disability. It was also submitted that the claimant was working as a painter and also as a driver of a light motor vehicle and possessed a valid driving licence; however, the Claims Tribunal erroneously assessed his income as an unskilled labourer. It was further argued that the Claims Tribunal committed errors in awarding compensation under the heads of loss of income, pain and suffering, transportation, and attendant charges. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Nur Ahmad Abdulsab Kanavi v. Abdul Munaf and others, 2025 ACJ 1621. On these grounds, it was prayed that the impugned award be suitably modified and enhanced compensation be granted.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/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. Firstly, with regard to the assessment of income, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimant was a skilled labourer, working as a painter and also driving a light motor vehicle. However, mere possession of a driving licence for a light motor vehicle does not, by itself, establish that the claimant was employed as a driver. From perusal of the evidence on record, it is evident that the claimant failed to produce any cogent documentary evidence to substantiate his claim that he was a skilled labourer or to establish his actual income at the time of the accident.

8. In view of the settled legal position laid down in Sukhdevi v. Devendra Kumar, ILR 2014 MP 172; Kanwar Devi v. Bansal Roadw