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. 631 of 2024 BHARATSINGH Versus JAGDISH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sachin Parmar - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Manoj Kumar Soni - Advocate for the respondent [R-3].

ORDER This misc. appeal has been filed against the impugned award dated

19.10.2023 passed in MACC No.15/2023 whereby the injured/appellant has awarded an amount of Rs.2,87,000/- alongwith interest which is challenged before this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though proof with regard to the income of the injured was given during trial but learned Claims Tribunal has failed to consider the same and considered the income Rs.7,000/- per month only in para 20 of the award. Whereas even as per the circular issued by the Labour Department under the Minimum Wages Act the income of the unskilled labourers comes to Rs.9,125/- per month therefore, atleast the same should have been considered. On this account, he prays for enhancement of the compensation award.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance company has opposed the prayer on the ground that income and other heads has been properly assessed by Claims Tribunal therefore, no interference is required by way of this appeal.

Heard and considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record.

4. From perusal of the record it is apparent that the income of the injured was claimed as Rs.1,15,000/- p.a but the evidence in this regard was not found sufficient therefore, learned Claims Tribunal has taken the income of Rs.7,000/- per month. As held by the Apex Court in catena of judgments including Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram & Anr. Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav reported in (2022) 1 SCC 198 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3093 , wherein cogent evidence has been laid before the Claims Tribunal even then the income of injured/deceased victim should be considered as per circular issued by the Labour Department under the Minimum Wages Act. Para 09 of the aforesaid judgment runs 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.”

5. Thus, this Court is of the view that income of the injured has been taken on the lower side going away from the settled principles. Income should have been taken Rs.9,125/- per month for computing the compensation amount. In the light of the aforesaid, just and proper compensation comes as under:-

Rs.9,125/- per month x 12 =

Loss of Rs.1,09,500/- (Deducted 1/2 Personal Expenses) =

Dependency:

Rs.54,750/- x 5 (Multiplier) = Rs.2,73,750/-

Loss of Rs.44,000/- Consortium:

Loss of Estate: Rs.16,500/- Funeral Expenses: Rs.16,500/-

Total: Rs.3,50,750/- MACT Award: Rs.2,87,000/-

Enhanc