IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 12 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 1033 of 2017 SMT. SIRMITI @ SIRIMATI AND OTHERS Versus BHAJANLAL @ RAMBHAJAN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arvind Kumar Mangal - Advocate for the appellants/claimants. Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal- Advocate for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

ORDER This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the Award dated 30/06/2017 passed by the Fourth Additional Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.181/2014, on the grounds of inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The date of accident, negligence, and liability are not in dispute. The findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal on these aspects have attained finality and are not under challenge in the present appeal.

3. As per the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal, in the case of death of Gabbar Singh in the motor accident, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,80,500/- along with interest in favour of claimants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at a very low figure of Rs.3500/- per month, ignoring the nature of work performed by the deceased.Further, the compensation awarded under the conventional heads as well as the rate of interest granted are inadequate. As a result, the overall compensation awarded is unjust and deserves to be enhanced.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Insurance Company supported the impugned award and submitted that the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation based on the evidence available on record. It is contended that the appeal lacks merit and deserves dismissal.

6. Learned counsel for Insurance Company submits that he does not want to press cross objection (IA No. 1477/2018). Accordingly, the same stands dismissed, as not pressed.

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

8. Upon consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the record, it is evident that the appellants failed to produce substantial documentary evidence regarding the income of the deceased. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in Sukhdevi v. Devendra Kumar, ILR 2014 MP 172; Kanwar Devi v. Bansal Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182; and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Renu Devi, (2008) 3 ACC 134 , where it is held that in absence of documentary proof, income is to be assessed as per the minimum wages applicable, this Court deems it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as that of an unskilled labourer. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.5270/- per month as per the Minimum Wages Act.

9. With regard to future prospects, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700, the claimants are entitled to future prospects at the rate of 25%. Further, as per Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. , (2009) 6 SCC 121, considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier of 14 should be applied by Claims Tribunal. Also, in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur and Others reported in 2020 ACJ 2131, the claimants are entitled to get compensation towards loss of consortium and loss of estate.

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

HEAD AMOUNT Income Rs.5270 x 12= Rs.63,240/-P.A.

After adding Future Prospects @25% Rs.15,810/- After deduction of personal expenses 1/4 Rs.59,288/-

Multiplier 14 Rs.8,30,032/-

Other Heads:-

Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000 X 6 = Rs.2,40,000/-

Loss of Estate and funeral expenses Rs.30,000/-

Total = Rs.11,0