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

rd

ON THE 23 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 1844 of 2022 SMT. DEVKANYA AND OTHERS Versus KRISHNA KUMAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Manish Jain - Advocate for the appellants.

Shr Anshul Dabhade - Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Bhaskar Agrawal with Shri Bharat Yadav - Advocate for respondent No.2 / Insurance Company.

ORDER This Misc. Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred against the award dated 20/01/2022 passed by Additional Member, Sardarpur, Distt. Dhar to the Court of I Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sardarpur in MACC No.218/2019, whereby an amount of Rs.11,45,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded from the date of filing of claim petition to the survivors of the deceased Shravan aged about 35 years, who passed away in a Road Traffic Accident caused by Trala bearing registration number HR-46-D-5106 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 and dashed the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants submits that the only dispute involved in the present appeal is with regard to income of the deceased, which has been taken as Rs.5,000/- per month, whereas on the date of accident and death i.e. on 01/10/2019 as per the prevalent circular issued by Labour Department of State of Madhya Pradesh under the Minimum Wages Act the income for an unskilled labour ascertained to Rs.7,950/- per month. Hence, prays for enhancing the compensation amount by taking into account the income of the deceased as Rs.7,950/- per month. He further submits that in the head of Future Prospects only 30% has been given, which should be enhanced to 40% looking to the age of the deceased as per para 59.4 of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC

680.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supporting the impugned award prays for dismissal of the appeal being devoid of substance. He submits that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper, needs no interference.

4. Heard and considered the rival submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. When it is not in dispute that deceased was 35 years of age on the date of accident and death, therefore, multiplier of 16 has rightly been applied by the learned Claims Tribunal. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on guess work @ Rs.5,000/- per month, instead thereof the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed on the basis of circular issued by the Labour Department of State of Madhya Pradesh under the Minimum Wages Act. As per the circular, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,950/- per month as unskilled labour.

6. In the light of para 59.4 of the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), instead of 30%, looking to the age of deceased 40% is awarded in the head of Future Prospects.

7. As per para 59.8 of the same judgment, in the head of Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/- with an increase of 10% is awarded to each of the claimants i.e. wife, two sons and mother, which comes to Rs.1,76,000/-. Similarly, in the head of Lost of Estate and Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- each with increase of 10% is awarded, which comes to Rs.16,500/- each.

th Deduction of 1/4 towards personal expenses has rightly been done by the learned Claims Tribunal.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts, just amount of compensation comes as under:

Thus, the amount is enhanced and appellants / claimants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs.6,66,720/- over and above the amount, which has been awarded by the Tribunal.

9. Since the appeal has been valued at Rs.5,00,000/-, therefore, the appellants are directed to pay additional court fees on the enhanced amount of Rs.1,66,720/- within a period of one month from today at the prevailing rate of court fees.

1