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

nd

ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 6309 of 2025 MAHAVEER @ DAMISH Versus SHANTILAL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vijay Singh Chouhan - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for respondent No.3 / Insurance Company.

ORDER This appeal has been preferred under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned award dated 18/06/2025 passed by IV Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore (M.P.) in MACC No.2409/2023, whereby an amount of Rs.15,52,000/- has been awarded to the appellant / victim / claimant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 11/07/2023.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant / victim submits that the income of the deceased should have been taken as 'Semi Skilled Person' which was permissible under the circular issued by the Labour Department of State of Madhya Pradesh under the Minimum Wages Act prevailing on the date of accident i.e. 16/04/2023 and according to this circular income has to be taken as Rs.10,507/-, whereas it has been taken only at Rs.9,275/-. The age of the appellant was only 19 years on the date of accident. As per the evidence adduced in the form of Disability Certificate (Ex.-P/112) proved by Dr. Ashutosh Verma (AW-2), disability should have been taken as 95%, but the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the disability to the tune of 25% only, therefore, it also needs to be enhanced. On these submissions, learned counsel prays for allowing the appeal and enhancing the award amount. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that there was no proof of the fact that appellant was 'Semi Skilled Person' and therefore, income has been properly assessed by the Claims Tribunal. Only skin grafting was done for the disability which arose from the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident, therefore, disability of the appellant cannot be taken as 95%. On these submission, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the appeal.

4. Heard and considered the rival submissions raised at bar and perused the record.

5. From perusal of the evidence available on record, appellant was serving as Salesman in the Cloth Shop, therefore, at least he can be treated as Semi Skilled Person and on this count as per the prevailing circular under the Minimum Wages Act issued by the Labour Department of State of Madhya Pradesh effective on the date of accident i.e. 16/04/2023, it should have been taken as Rs.10,507/- at the place of Rs.9,275/- per month.

6. Appellant has suffered grievous injury in the right shoulder, which has caused functional disability. Since he was a Salesman, therefore, looking to the nature of job, permanent disability should have been taken at least 45% and learned Claims Tribunal has committed an error in assessing disability only to the extent of 25%.

7. Thus, the just and proper compensation comes as under:

Thus, the amount is enhanced and appellant / claimant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.7,35,834/- over and above the amount, which has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

8. Since the appeal has been valued at Rs.1,00,000/- only, therefore, the appellant is directed to pay additional court fees on the rest of the amount of Rs.6,35,834/- within a period of one month from today at the prevailing rate of court fees, thereafter, the same will be disbursed to him. It is made clear, in case the court fees is not paid within the stipulated period, the appellant will not be entitled for claiming interest on the enhanced amount beyond 30 days' period.

9. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant / claimant is allowed to the extent as indicated hereinabove. The other terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

Certified copy as per rules. (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)

JUDGE Tej