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

th

ON THE 26 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 6888 of 2025 SMT. PREETI AND OTHERS Versus JITENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr.Vijay Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellants.

Ms.Priti Keshwani, learned counsel for respondent No.3 / Insurance Company.

ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the appellants / claimants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved by the award dated 11.07.2025 passed by the XXXI Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No.1954/2023, whereby although the claim was allowed, the quantification according to the claimants is on the lower side.

2. The facts of the case are that on 03.04.2023, the deceased Shri Hari @ Arjit Tiwari was going by Activa towards his Village Gujargaon. When he reached near Murliwala Restaurant at around 7:30 PM, container bearing registration number MH-42-AQ-3889 driven in rash and negligent manner, collided head-on with his Activa. As a result, Shri Hari sustained greivous injuries to various parts of his body, including his head and died on the spot.

2.1 The appellants / claimants filed their claim petition under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of Shri Hari in the aforesaid accident. After recording evidence, the Claims Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle. Consequently, the Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation and total compensation of Rs.29,18,200/-

along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum was awarded.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Claims Tribunal while quantifying the amount of compensation, has incorrectly assessed the income of the deceased Shri Hari. He submits that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month from Voltech Engineering Company, New Siyaganj, Indore, where he was doing private job additional Rs.16,000/- per month as part-time employee at Angel One Company, Vijay Nagar, Indore. Accordingly, the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.18,500/- per month is on the lower side.

3.1 He further submits that the amount of consortium, fixed at Rs.44,000/- each has been incorrectly calculated. As per the escalation provided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, 10% addition would amount to Rs.48,000/- each. Similarly, he further submits that escalation in the amounts awarded for funeral expenses and loss of estate should also have been done, which the Tribunal failed to do.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased. She submits that the claimants have not produced any document regarding the qualifications of the deceased Shri Hari so as to prove that he was working part-time at Angel One Company and doing the accountancy work. Further, there is no proof to demonstrate that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. As such, the Tribunal correctly assessed the income at Rs.18,500/- per month.

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

6. From the consideration of the documents, it is clear that the deceased was first appointed in Voltech Engineering Company in the year 2011, promoted to Manager in the year 2014 in the same Company, and has been working as Executive since October, 2022. As such, the same shows that he was gainfully employed and earning from the said employment. However, there is no definitive material to show that he was earning Rs.16,000/- per month as a part-time worker in the other company i.e. Angel One.

7. Looking to the long duration of employment since 2011, this Court considers it proper to enhance the income to some extent. Apart from this, learned counsel for the appellants is correct in submitting that the escalation in the amount of compensation for loss of consortium has not been assessed correctly. In the considered view of this Court, the same sh