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

th

ON THE 25 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 3475 of 2018 RITESH SAHU Versus SURAJ AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ramesh Prasad Gupta - Advocate for the appellant/claimant.

Shri Rajiv Shrivastav-Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

ORDER This Miscellaneous appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by appellant-claimant, seeking an enhancement of compensation by challenging the impugned Award dated 09/05/2018, passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Datia (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 59/2017, whereby Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs. 4,73,070/-

2. The date of the accident, negligence, and liability are not in dispute. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is on the lower side. It is contended that on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, it stood proved that the appellant sustained 45% permanent disability due to the accident; however, the Claims Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability at 30% with respect to earning capacity. It is further submitted that the appellant is unable to perform gainful employment and, therefore, the compensation deserves enhancement.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Insurance Company supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and record of Claims Tribunal 6. Upon reviewing the evidence of Dr. S.K. Khanagar (A.W.3), it is found that Claims Tribunal correctly assessed appellant's permanent disability i.e. 30% with respect to his earning capacity. Therefore, no interference is warranted in this regard.

7. So far as enhancement of compensation in favour of appellant - claimant is concerned, upon reviewing the evidence and the record of the Claims Tribunal, it is found that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the claimant at Rs. 5,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. Given the profession of the claimant, his income should be assessed as a skilled person. In light of the claimant’s profession, this Court finds it appropriate to assess his income at Rs.8,810/- per month. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the just and proper monthly income of the appellant/claimant in this case is Rs. 8,810/-

per month.

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 claimant is entitled to future prospects at the rate of 40%. Further, as per Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. , (2009) 6 SCC 121, considering the age of appellant claimant, the appropriate multiplier of 17 should be applied.

9. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant–claimant and the extent of permanent disability suffered by him in the accident in question, this Court is of the considered opinion that an enhancement of Rs. 1,60,000/- under the conventional heads, namely special diet, transportation, pain and suffering and other incidental expenses, would be just and proper.

10. Accordingly, appellant- claimant is entitled to receive compensation under the following heads:-

HEAD AMOUNT Rs. 8810 x 12= Rs.

Income

1,05,720/- P.A.

After adding Future Prospects @40% Rs. 42,288/- Permanent Disability 30% Rs. 44,402/-

Multiplier 17 (according to age of appellant ) Rs. 7,54,834/-

Other Heads:-

Future treatment Rs. 25,000/-

Other heads (special diet, transportation, pain Rs. 1,60,000/-

and suffering etc Medical Bills Rs. 64,070/-

Total compensation = Rs. 10,03,904/-

11. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation payable in the present case comes to Rs.10,03,904/- as against the sum of Rs.4,73,070/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellant- claimant is held entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 5,30,834/- over and above th