IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL th ON THE 13 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 3246 of 2008 SANT RAM AND ANOTHER Versus VIJAY KU. CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 3248 of 2008 SMT. SANNO BAI AND ANOTHER Versus VIJAY KU. CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vivek Baderiya - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri V.K Trivedi - Advocate for respondent No.2/Insurance company.

ORDER The present appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants assailing the award dated 14.03.2008 passed in M.C.C No.57/2007 and 58/2007 by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Seoni (M.P.). By the said award, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions and granted compensation to the tune of Rs.3,74,500/- along with the interest of 6% per annum.

2. M.A No. 3246 of 2008 has been filed by the appellants who are the parents of the deceased, Jitesh Tekaam, who died in a motor vehicle accident on

17.02.2007. At the time of accident, he was bachelor aged 26 years.

3. M.A No. 3248 of 2008 has been filed by the appellants who are wife and son of the deceased Ratan Dhurve, who died in the same motor vaccident on

17.02.2007. At the time of accident, he was aged 45 years.

4. On the fateful day, when accident occurred, both the deceased were travelling in the offending vehicle and were returning from Nagpur to Kurai. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 driver/owner of the said vehicle, the vehicle dashed against a tree, as a result of which Jitesh and Ratan Dhurve died on the spot.

5. Respondent No. 1 is the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle and denied his liability and respondent No. 2 who is the insurer of the said vehicle also denied its liability on the ground that the vehicle was allegedly being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On account of the untimely death of both the deceased, the appellants filed claim petitions before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Seoni, seeking compensation.

6. After recording the evidence adduced by the appellants and hearing the parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the deceased were earning Rs.3000/- per month each. By applying a multiplier of 15, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,74,500/- each inclusive of compensation under other conventional heads in favour of the respective claimants on account of death of both the deceased.

7. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellants have preferred the present appeals seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day, which is on the lower side and not in accordance with the prevailing wages at the relevant time. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to properly consider future prospects and did not award adequate compensation under the conventional heads. He contends that the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate and contrary to the settled principles governing determination of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may kindly enhance the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in the interest of justice.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. On perusal of the record, it is revealed that in respect of deceased persons, the learned Tribunal assessed and awarded compensation under the following heads:

S. No. Head of Compensation Amount (Rs.)

1. Annual income after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses 24,000/-

2. Loss of dependency (24,000 × 15 multiplier) 3,60,000/-

3. Funeral expenses 2,000/-

4. Loss of consortium 10,000/-

5. Loss of estate 2,500/-

Total Compensation 3,74,500/-

11. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 3,74,500/- was awarded in each case along w