IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

rd

ON THE 3 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 2285 of 2016 SMT. KAMINI BEE AND OTHERS Versus SALMAN THRU. NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER MO. ASLAM AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Himanshu Paliwal - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Anil Kumar Goyal - Advocate for the respondent No.3.

ORDER This appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is preferred by the appellant challenging the impugned award dated 20.01.2016 passed by the 16th Member of the MACT, Indore in claim case No.102/2013. By the impugned award the learned Tribunal allowed the claim case and granted compensation to the tune of Rs.6,11,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 05.01.2010 at around 5:00 pm, the deceased met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 as a result the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the next day during treatment. Thereafter, an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was filed by the claimant seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.22,50,000/-. Learned Tribunal found that the accident was caused by respondent No.1 due to his rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle which was insured with respondent No.3 on the fateful day. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.6,11,000/- against the claim of Rs.22,50,000/-. The Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation as the driver was minor.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Tribunal has committed error in not awarding the amount under the head of future prospect contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 4 ACJ 270. The tribunal has also not awarded any amount under the head of loss of estate and loss of consortium. He further submitted that as per the law laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swarn Singh, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner and driver in case of no valid driving license.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance company refuting the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding arrived by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and does not require any interference by this Court under this appeal. Counsel for the respondent has further submitted that Tribunal has given finding in respect for the exoneration of the Insurance company. It is not in disputed that the respondent no.1 was responsible for causing the accident on the fateful day and it is admitted fact that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. The only question for determination in this appeal is that whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal requires modification or not and whether and the Tribunal has properly exonerate the Insurance company or not. 5. Having heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and going to the material evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred in not calculating the amount in the head of future prospects as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi, (supra). The claimant is entitled for the 40% future prospects amount and he is also entitled in the head of consortium and loss of estate.

6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), and Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Others reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the claimant is entitled to get compensation as under:-

Loss of dependency : 8,06,400/- (4,500 + 40% x 12 x 16 and deduction of 2/3)

Loss of consortium : 1,60,000/- (40,000 x 4)

Loss of Estate : 15,000/- Loss of Funeral expe