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

th

ON THE 18 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 135 of 2018 RAJESH SINGH AND OTHERS Versus BHUPENDRA SINGH TOMAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Ms. Meena Singhal - Advocate for the appellants/claimants.

Shri Badri Nath Malhotra-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 13/10/2017 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambah, District Morena (M.P.), in Claim Case No. 132/2011, 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. 6,50,952/- along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization on account of the death of Smt.

Rajkumari in the motor accident.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, assailing the impugned award, submitted that the Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased on the lower side. It is contended that the deceased was a homemaker and ought to have been treated as a manager of the household, and her income should have been assessed at least equivalent to that of a semi-skilled labourer. It is submitted that the assessment of income 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 assessment of income, the Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,796/- per month treating her as an unskilled labourer. The deceased was a homemaker. The contribution of a homemaker cannot be measured merely in monetary terms. A housewife manages the entire household without fixed working hours and without any leave. The economic value of the services rendered by a homemaker has been consistently recognized by the courts.

8. This Court is of the considered view that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased as that of an unskilled labourer. The income of the deceased 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. 4,525/- 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 6 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.4525 X12= Rs.54,300/- P.A.

Future Prospects@40% Rs.21,720/- Dependency 2/3 Rs.50,680/-

Multiplier 16 Rs.8,10,880/-

Other Heads:-

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

Loss of Estate and funeral expenses Rs.30,000/-

Total = Rs.9,60,880/-

11. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation payable in the present case comes to Rs. 9,60,880/- as against the sum of Rs.6,50,952/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are held entitled to