IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

rd

ON THE 3 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 1742 of 2016 RUKSANA BEE AND OTHERS Versus VIJAY AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Manoj Malviya - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Sudhir Dandwate, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Co.

ORDER

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants / claimants under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the impugned awarded dated 12.5.2016 passed by the 2nd Additional Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhar (M.P.) in Claim Case No.93/2015. By the impugned award, the learned claims tribunal has awarded a compensation amount of Rs.5,78,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 6.11.2014 around 10.00 am to

12.00 am, the deceased was met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 resultantly the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Thereafter the claimants of deceased filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.55,75,000/-. The learned claims tribunal found that the accident was caused by respondent No.1 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle which was insured with respondent No.3/Insurance Co. Thus the learned claim tribunal awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,78,000/- as against Rs.55,75,000/- as claimed by the claimants.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4500/- which is on lower side, thus, the compensation deserves to be enhanced. The Tribunal has also erred in not calculating the amount in the head of future prospects as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680.

4. Refuting the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Co. has submitted that the findings arrived at by the learned claims Tribunal are just and proper and do not require any interference by this Court under this appeal.

5. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 was responsible for causing the accident and on the fateful day, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. The only question for determination is whether the impugned award require any modification or not.

6. Having heard the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and going through the material and evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on lower side. As per the Madhya Pradesh State Legal Service Authority Guideline, the income of unskilled labour would be Rs.5,895/- per month whereas the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month only.

7. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the income of deceased would be Rs.5,895/- in place of Rs.4,500/-. The claimants are entitled for further enhancement of 25% in the head of future prospects as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments (Rs.5895 + 25% = Rs.7369/-). Thus the total amount including the future prospects would be Rs.7369/- per month and yearly Rs.88428/-. As the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the total dependent persons in the family were five persons, the deduction amount would be 1/4th from the monthly income of the deceased which would be Rs.5,526/- and yearly is Rs.66,321/- as yearly. Looking towards the age of deceased as 45 years and as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier of 13 would be applicable in present case (Rs.66321 x 13 = 8,62,173). Hence the claimants are entitled in the h