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

th

ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 1907 of 2025 SHANKAR Versus GANESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Tarun Kushwah - Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Priti Keshwani - Advocate for the respondent No.3.

ORDER This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned award dated 29/11/2024 passed by IInd Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manawar, District Dhar (M.P.) in MACC No.313/2021, whereby an amount of Rs.2,09,700/- has been awarded from the date of filing of claim petition in favour of the appellant / claimant / injured with interest @ 6% per annum.

02. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was a driver therefore, his income should have been assessed as a semi-skilled labourer as per the prevailing circular issued under the Minimum Wages Act by the Labour Department of the State of M.P as Rs.9,557/- whereas the Tribunal has considered Rs.6,500/- which is on the lower side. In the head of future prospects looking to the age of appellant/claimant ie. 32 years, as per the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case o f National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of income should have been added in future prospects. He further submits that learned Tribunal has cumulatively awarded a sum of Rs.6,500/- for Attendant, Special diet and Transport charges which should have been Rs.5000/- each for Attendant, Special diet and Transport charges. The learned Claims Tribunal disbelieved the disability of 18% without any cogent reasons and held disability of 6%. On these grounds the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant prays for enhancement of the impugned award.

03. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance company has opposed the prayer on the ground that just and proper compensation is awarded by the Claims Tribunal and therefore, needs no interference by way of this appeal.

Heard and considered the submissions and perused the record.

04. It is well settled that if the appellant was not having any fixed income and there is no proof with that regard, on the basis of guess work, guidelines provided by M.P.Legal Services Authority which is based on circular issued by the Labour Department under the Minimum Wages Act are to be taken and looking to the aforesaid guidelines, the income should have been taken as Rs.9,557/- of a semi skilled labourer at the place of Rs.6,500/-. Similarly, as per guidelines issued by the Apex Court in para 59.4 in the case National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the income should be have been added in the head of future prospects looking to the age of the deceased which was 32 years on the date of accident. It is common knowledge during the treatment Attendant, Special diet and Transportation requires huge amount therefore, the cumulative award of Rs.6,500/- for Attendant, Special diet and Transport charges is on the lesser side and it ought to have been Rs.5000/- each for Attendant, Special diet and Transport charges. In the head of loss of income for one month the appellant was not in a position to work hence, a sum of Rs.9,557/- should be added in the head of loss of income in computation. The permanent disability of whole body is taken as 6%.

05. Considering the evidence that came on record, in the considered opinion of this Court the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side which deserves to be enhanced as under:-

Rs.9557/- + Rs.3,822/-(40% FP)=Rs.13,379/- x 12=

Permanent Rs.1,60,548/- - 6% P.D. = Rs.9632.88 x 16 (multiplier)

disability =Rs.1,54,126/-

Medical Rs.71,867/-

Expenses Pain &

Rs.20,000/-

Suffering Attendant Rs.5,000/- Transport Rs.5,000/-

Special Rs.5,000/-

diet Loss of Rs.9557/-

Income Total Rs.2,70,550/-

Amount MACT Rs.2,09,700/-

Award Enhanced Rs.60,850/- (Rs.61,000/- round up)

Amount

06. Th