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

th

ON THE 24 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 3062 of 2018 RAMSHANKAR BAGHEL AND OTHERS Versus BHUPENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ramesh Prasad Gupta - Advocate for the appellants/claimants.

Shri Kamal Kumar Rochalani-Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

ORDER This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants–claimants challenging the award dated 23/03/2018 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (M.P.), in Claim Case No. 577/2016, seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

2. The date of the accident, the finding of negligence, and the liability of the Insurance Company are not in dispute. The findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal on these aspects have attained finality, as the same have not been challenged in the present appeal.

3. As per the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 9,26,800/- along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization on account of the death of Smt.

Rajkumari Baghel in the motor accident.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, assailing the impugned award, submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased on the lower side. It is contended that the deceased was engaged in tailoring work and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month; however, the learned Tribunal failed to properly consider this aspect. It is further submitted that the assessment of income by treating the deceased as an unskilled labourer is erroneous and, on this ground, enhancement of compensation has been sought. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Insurance Company supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of appeal and also filed cross objection for reduction of compensation amount.

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

7. With regard to the assessment of income, the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month by treating her as an unskilled labourer on the ground that no documentary evidence regarding her income was produced. However, the record reflects that the deceased, being a lady, was also a homemaker. The contribution made by a homemaker cannot be equated with that of an unskilled labourer. A homemaker renders multifarious services to the family, manages the entire household without fixed working hours and without any leave. The economic value of such services has been consistently recognized by the Courts and cannot be ignored while determining just compensation.

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased as that of an unskilled labourer. Even in the absence of strict documentary proof of income from tailoring work, her income ought to have been assessed at least at the level of a semi-skilled labourer under the Minimum Wages Act, which at the relevant time was Rs.7,707/- per month.

9. As regards future prospects, in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700, the claimants are entitled to addition of future prospects. Considering the age of the deceased, addition of 40% towards future prospects is appropriate. 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 1 7 has rightly been applied by Claims Tribunal. The claimant Nos. 1 to 3 are also entitled to consortium. 10. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation under the following heads:-

HEAD AMOUNT Income Rs. 7707 X12= Rs.92,484/- P.A.

Future Prospects@40% Rs.36,994/- Dependency 2/3 Rs.86,319/-

Multiplier 17 Rs.14,67,423/-

Other Heads:-

Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000 X 3= Rs.1,20,000/-

Loss of Estate