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. 1255 of 2017 SMT. RUBINA BEE AND OTHERS Versus CHANDERSINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sameer Verma - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for respondent No.3 /Insurance Company.

ORDER This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned award dated 04/05/2017 th passed by Member 14 , Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore (M.P.) in Claim Case No.278/2015, whereby an amount of Rs.3,50,500/- has been awarded from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 15/12/2014 to the appellants / claimants / survivors of the deceased Noshad Ali with simple interest @ 9% per annum.

2) Claimants' in brief is that on 09/11/2024 at about 12:00 to 02:30 in the night Noshad Ali aged about 32 years was going on his Motorcycle bearing registration number MP-41-ME-0424 towards Tonkkhurd from Tokla. When he reached near Harnawada Talab Colony collided from the rear side with the stationed tractor and trolley bearing registration number MP-41-AA-0411 and MP-41-M-4008 respectively. In the accident, deceased sustained grievous injuries, due to which he passed away. Survivors of the deceased filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.35,50,000/-. 3) Learned counsel for the appellants / survivors of the deceased submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month only. At the time of accident deceased was working as Truck Driver and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. His contention is that in case the income of the deceased is not proved by any cogent evidence, income ought to have been assessed on the basis of circular issued by Labour Department of State of Madhya Pradesh under the Minimum Wages Act, according to which income of the deceased is to be taken as Rs.5,845/- per month.

3.1) Learned counsel further submits that learned Claims Tribunal has deducted 50% towards contributory negligence. In this regard his contention is that there was dark around and the offending Tractor Trolley was stationed on the road without any indicators, which resulted in the accident. It was the driver of the offending vehicle, who was responsible for the accident and not the deceased, therefore, he submits that no amount ought to have been deducted towards contributory negligence.

3.2) He further submits that learned Claims Tribunal has also erred in not awarding any amount in the head of future prospects, whereas as per para 59.4 of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, looking to the age about 32 years of deceased, 40% amount is to be added in the head of Future Prospects.

3.3) Learned counsel further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the head of Loss of Consortium. His contention is that all the survivors should have been awarded Rs.40,000/- each in the head of Loss of Consortium in the light of para 59.8 of the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). Learned Claims Tribunal also not awarded any amount in head of Loss of Estate, therefore, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is to be added in this head. On these contentions, learned counsel prays for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation amount and to dismiss the cross-objection filed on behalf of the Insurance Company.

4) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 / Insurance Company opposed the prayer on the ground that amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and no enhancement is required. All the factors have been considered by the learned Claims Tribunal while awarding the compensation amount. His contention is that the amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded in the head of Funeral Expenses is on higher side in view of the guidelines issued in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), therefore, the same requir