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

th

ON THE 26 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 4849 of 2018 SMT. VIMLA DEVI AND OTHERS Versus MUKESH SINGH TOMAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Hemant Kumar Goyal- Advocate for appellants/claimants.

Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta- Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

ORDER This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the Award dated 20/07/2018 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District- Gwalior (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.127/2016, on the ground of inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement thereof.

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 Ramjbaran Singh in the motor accident, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,16,186/- along with interest in favour of claimants.

4.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing future prospects at the rate of 15% instead of 25%. It is contended that the deceased was aged 48 years at the time of the accident and, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700, the claimants are entitled to addition of 25% towards future prospects for the age group of 40 to 50 years.

Hence, the award deserves suitable modification.

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

7. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,239/-. No interference is warranted with respect to the assessment of income.

8. 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 13 has been 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 and the dependency is required to be assessed after deducting 1/3 of personal expenses of income of deceased.

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

HEAD AMOUNT Rs.6239 x 12= Rs.

Income

74,868/- P.A.

After adding Future Prospects @25% Rs.18,717/-

After deduction of personal expenses of Rs.62,390/-

deceased 1/3 Multiplier 13 Rs.8,11,070 Other Heads:-

Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000 Loss of Estate and funeral expenses Rs.30,000/-

Total = Rs.8,81,070/-

10. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation payable in the present case comes to Rs. 8,81,070/- as against the sum of Rs.8,16,186/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are held entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.64,884/- over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal.

11. Consequently, this miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified, and the compensation i