IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 8 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 1429 of 2010

KU.RITU AND OTHERS

Versus

VINOD RAJAK AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri R.P.Gupta, Shri Sudesh Bhadoriya and Shri Akhilesh Gupta - Advocate

for the appellants/claimants.

Shri Kamal Kumar Rochalani-Advocate for respondent No.6/New India

Insurance Company.

Shri Om Prakash Mathur-Advocate for respondent No.5.

Shri Naresh Singh Tomar-Advocate for respondent No.3/Bajal Alians

General Insurance Company.

ORDER Tribunal on these aspects have attained finality and are not under challenge in the present appeal.

This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants

under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the award dated 09.07.2010 passed by the First Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 43/2008, whereby the claim petition was partly allowed. The present appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the

compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

2. The factum of accident, negligence of the offending vehicle, and liability

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

3.Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the impugned award is contrary to the evidence available on record and the settled principles of law governing determination of compensation in fatal accident cases. It is submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the salary certificate issued by the competent authority and wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,953/- per month.

4.It is further contended that sufficient oral and documentary evidence, including the salary certificate (Ex.P-9), was adduced to establish that the deceased was earning Rs.6,606/- per month while working as a Peon in Government Art and Commerce College, Mohna, District Gwalior. Learned counsel further submitted that the Claims Tribunal committed a grave error in deducting amounts towards DPF, GIS and festival advance from the income of the deceased while computing the monthly income.

5.It is also argued that the Claims Tribunal failed to grant future prospects and did not award reasonable compensation under the conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On these grounds, enhancement of compensation has been prayed for.

6.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

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

8.So far as the determination of income of the deceased is concerned, the appellants have relied upon the salary certificate Ex.P-9 issued by the Government Art and Commerce College, Mohna, District Gwalior. On perusal of the salary slip, it is evident that the gross monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.6,606/-. The deductions towards DPF, GIS and festival advance are statutory and personal savings and, therefore, cannot be excluded while assessing the income of the deceased. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.6,606/-.

9.With regard to loss of income including future prospects, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700, the claimants are entitled to addition of 15% towards future prospects. Further, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier applicable in the present case is “9”.

10.Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are entitled to compensation under the following heads:

Head Amount Monthly Income Rs. 6,606/- Annual Income (Rs. 6,606 × 12) Rs. 79,272/- Addition towards Future Prospects @ 15%Rs. 11,890/- Income after addition Rs. 91,162/- Dependency (2/3rd) Rs. 60,775/-

Mul