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

th

ON THE 18 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 4404 of 2025 SMT.NIRMA BAI AND OTHERS Versus ISHWAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Hemant Kumar Vaishnav- Advocate with Shri Sahitya Vaishnav-

Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Manoj Jain - 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 21.02.2025 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Badwani (M.P.) in MACC No.335/2023, whereby an amount of Rs.6,18,000/- along with interest has been awarded to the survivors of the deceased Bharat Jadhav aged about 10 years.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the income of the deceased child has been assessed on the lower side, whereas as per the circular issued under the Minimum Wages Act by the Labour Department of State of Madhya Pradesh the income on the date of incident is Rs.9,650/- as per directions given in the case of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413. In the head of loss of estate nothing has been awarded. In the head of consortium atleast mother and father should have been awarded an amount of Rs.80,000/- cumulatively. On this submission prays for allowing the appeal by enhancing the award amount.

3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the prayer on the ground that the income has been properly assessed as the child was only a student aged about 10 years and in the head of funeral expenses Rs.18,000/- has been awarded which should be only Rs.15,000/- and consortium should be awarded only to mother and father of the deceased and accordingly prays for passing of appropriate order.

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 Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 has held as under:-

“20. Both the courts below have held that since the girl was a young child of 12 years only notional income of Rs 15,000 p.a. can be taken into consideration. We do not think this is a proper way of assessing the future loss of income. This young girl after studying could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs 15,000 p.a. Each case has to be decided on its own evidence but taking notional income to be Rs 15,000 p.a. is not at all justified. The appellant has placed before us material to show that the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman is Rs 4846 per month. In our opinion, this would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. Adding 40% for the future prospects, it works to be Rs 6784.40 per month i.e. 81,412.80 p.a. Applying the multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs 14,65,430.40, which is rounded off to Rs 14,66,000.”

6. In light of the aforesaid it is well settled that the income of the deceased child comes to Rs.9,650/-. The deceased was bachelor and multiplier of 15 will be applicable as the deceased was below 18 years of age. In the head of consortium an amount of Rs.80,000/- will be awarded. Accordingly, the just and proper compensation comes as under:-

7. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant case is Rs.13,25,900/-as against the award of the Tribunal of Rs.6,18,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to an enhanced amount of Rs.7,07,900/- over and above the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal.

8. The appeal is valued as Rs.2,00,000/- and for the rest of the amount the claimants will pay the requisite Court fees within a period of 30 days from today and only thereafter enhanced amount will be disbursed. It is made clear, in case the court fees is not paid within the stipulated period, the appellants will not be entitled for claiming interest on the enhanced amount beyond 30 days' period.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. The other terms and conditions of the impugn