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

rd

ON THE 23 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 1911 of 2025 BHANWAR BAI AND OTHERS Versus KALIM AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Tarun Kushwah - Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Priti Keshwani - Advocate for respondent no.3.

ORDER This Misc. Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants assailing the impugned award dated 24.12.2024 passed by II Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manawar, District Dhar (M.P.) in MACC No.247/2023, whereby an amount of Rs.8,31,853/- along with interest has been awarded to the survivors of the deceased Fatu Singh.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs.6,500/- without any basis, whereas as per the circular issued under the Minimum Wages Act by the Labour Department of State of Madhya Pradesh the income of an unskilled labour on the date of incident is Rs.9,650/-. On this submission prays for allowing the appeal by enhancing the award amount on this count.

3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the prayer on the ground that the income has been properly assessed by the Claims Tribunal and needs no enhancement and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

4. Heard and considered the rival submissions raised at bar by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5 . The Apex Court in the case of Chandra @ Chanda @

Chandraram & Anr. Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav reported in (2022) 1 SCC 198 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3093 has held as under:-

“9. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning Rs 15,000 per month. Possessing such licence and driving of heavy vehicle on the date of accident is proved from the evidence on record. Though the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed as AW 1 that her husband Shivpal was earning Rs 15,000 per month, same was not considered only on the ground that salary certificate was not filed. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016. In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because the claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs 15,000 per month.”

6. In light of the aforesaid, where the income of the deceased is taken on guess work, circular issued under the Minimum Wages Act should be resorted to. Accordingly, on the date of accident i.e. on 30.07.2023 income of the deceased is to be taken as Rs.9,650/- considering him as 'Unskilled Labour', whereas the learned Claims Tribunal has taken the income as Rs.6,500/- only. Accordingly, the just and proper compensation comes as under:-

Rs.9,650/- per month + Rs.965/- (10% Future Prospects)

Loss of = Rs.10,615/-x 12 x 9 (Multiplier) =Rs.11,46,420/- less Dependency Rs.2,86,605/- (1/4 Personal expenses)= Rs.8,59,815/-

Loss of Consortium: Rs.1,92,000/-

Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-

Funeral Rs.18,000/-

Expenses Medical Bills Rs.24,649 Total: Rs.11,12,464/-

MACT Rs.8,31,853/-

Award:

Enhanced Rs.2,80,611/-

Amount

7 . Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant case is Rs.11,12,464/ as against the award of the Tribunal of Rs.8,31,853/-. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to an enhanced amount of Rs.2,80,611/- over and above the amount which has been awarde