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. 3260 of 2022 KERSINGH Versus ARJUN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Tarun Kushwah - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for the respondent No. 3.

ORDER This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 29.04.2022 passed in MACC No. 412/2018 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal awarded the amount of Rs.3,50,500/-

02. Claimant/appellant's case is that on 09.12.2017 at about 12 p.m., appellant along with his friend Besta was going from Betwasa to Jobat on motorcycle. Respondent No. 1 was driven his motorcycle No. M.P.09 NM 0460 rashly and negligently came from the opposite side and collided with the motorcycle of the appellant wherein he suffered grievous injuries and fracture in bones of right leg which resulted in 50% disability. He was admitted in the hospital where rod and screw were implanted and expenditure of Rs.2,50,000/- also incurred. He was earning Rs.15,000/- per month before the date of accident and he suffered loss of income. On these contentions, claim petition was filed wherein by the impugned award, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,50,500/- along with interest which has given rise to this appeal.

03. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that income of the deceased should have been taken at least at the slab given in Circular issued under Minimum Wages Act by the Labour Department of Government of M.P. which comes to Rs.7,125/- on the date of accident i.e. 09.12.2017 whereas the learned Claims Tribunal has taken income as Rs.5000/- which is on lower side. Learned counsel further submits that the age of the injured was 29 years and, therefore, as per guidance provided in in para 59.4 in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the income in the head of future prospects should have been added whereas only 30% has been added by the learned Claims Tribunal which requires to be enhanced. Similarly, he submits that 50% permanent disability certificate was issued vide Ex.P/72, but learned Claims Tribunal has reduced it to 5% only on its whims without any basis which also requires enhancement and loss of income during treatment has also not been considered. On these counts, he prays for enhancement of the award amount.

0 4 . Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supporting the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal submits that all the evidence adduced for all heads available for award of income has been taken into consideration. No doctor was examined, therefore, 5% of the disability taken by the learned Claims Tribunal cannot be challenged. On these submissions, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

05. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

06. It is apparent from perusal of the record that no cogent evidence has been adduced by the appellant, therefore, income on the date of accident should have been taken as per Circular issued under Minimum Wages Act which comes to Rs.7,125/- per month for unskilled labourer. Learned Claims Tribunal has committed an error in taking income of Rs.5000/- for computation of the award amount. As per para 59.4 of Pranay Sethi (supra), in the head of future prospects for the victims, who were below the age of 40 years (in the instant case, 29 years), 40% of the income in the head of future prospect is added. Permanent disability certificate has been issued showing 50% disablement, even if it is taken for whole of the body, it should have been assessed at least 15%, hence 5% is on lower side. Since appellant remains hospitalised for 53 days, therefore, in the head of attendant expenditure, Rs.15,000/- also requires to be given.

07. Considering the evidence that came on record, in the considered opinion of this Court the compens