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. 997 of 2015 RAJU Versus RAMSWAROOP PARIHAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the appellant/claimant.

Shri Ram Vilas Sharma-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 01/07/2015, passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lahar District Bhind (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 120/2011, whereby Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs. 2,13,000/-.

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 50% permanent disability due to the accident; however, the Claims Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability at 33% 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. R.K. Agarwal, it is found that Claims Tribunal correctly assessed appellant's permanent disability i.e. 33% 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, it is evident that appellant claimant failed to produce substantial documentary evidence regarding his income. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in Sukhdevi v. Devendra Kumar, ILR 2014 MP 172; Kanwar Devi v. Bansal Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182; and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Renu Devi, (2008) 3 ACC 134, where it is held that in absence of documentary proof, income is to be assessed as per the minimum wages applicable, this Court deems it appropriate to assess income of appellant claimant as that of an unskilled worker. Accordingly, his monthly income is assessed at Rs.4,395/- per month as per the Minimum Wages Act.

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 16 has been applied by Claims Tribunal.

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. 1,50,000/- under the conventional heads, namely special diet, transportation, pain and suffering and other incidental expenses, would be just and proper. It is further observed that the Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and has accordingly reduced the compensation by 50%. The said finding and consequent deduction do not warrant interference and are affirmed as being legally sustainable. 10. Accordingly, appellant- claimant is entitled to receive compensation under the following heads:-

HEAD AMOUNT Rs. 4395 x 12=

Income Rs52,740/- P.A.

After adding Future Prospects @40% Rs. 21,096/- Permanent Disability 33% Rs. 24,366/- Multiplier 16 (according to age of appellant ) Rs.3,89,856/-

Other Heads:-

Treatment past Rs.2,00,000/-

Other heads (special diet, transportation, pain Rs. 1,50