##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH rd ON THE 3 OF NOVEMBER, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 6071 of 2022 CNR No.: MPHC030296972022 RAJESH SINGH AND ANR Versus RAHUL SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Dharmendra Rishishwar - learned counsel for appellants-

claimants.

Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal-learned counsel for the respondent No.3-

Insurance Company.

None for respondents No. 1 and 2 (owner and driver of offending vehicle) though served ORDER The matter is finally heard with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2.The present miscellaneous appeal has been preferred under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the appellants-claimants, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhind (hereinafter referred to as the “Claims Tribunal”), vide Award dated 14th of September, 2022 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 43 of 2020, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs 5,45,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization, on account of death of minor- deceased Harendra Singh Baghel, in a motor accident that occurred on 24.12.2019.

3. The date of accident, negligence and liability are not in dispute. The present appeal is confined only to the enhancement of compensation amount.

Therefore, there is no need to reproduce the facts of the case in detail herein.

4. Shri Rishishwar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-

claimants submits that, at the time of accident, deceased, Harendra Singh Baghel, was a minor and was held by the Claims Tribunal to be aged about 14 years, 7 months and 9 days. However, the notional income has been determined by the Claims Tribunal at Rs.25,000/- per month, whereas, in view of the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court, the notional income ought to have been ascertained on the basis of minimum wages payable to unskilled workman on the date of accident, i.e., Rs. 7,950/- per month. He submits that the Claims Tribunal has erred in this regard and the appellants-claimants are entitled to adequate enhancement.

5. On the other hand, Shri Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, by referring to the cross-objections filed vide Document No. 3508 of 2026 under Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC, submits that the determination of the age of deceased as 14 years, 7 months and 9 days by the Claims Tribunal, on the basis of the Aadhaar Card, is erroneous. As per the postmortem report (Ex.P10), the age of deceased was 13 years. The Aadhaar Card is not conclusive proof for the determination of age, whereas the postmortem report is a scientific report. Therefore, the age ought to have been determined by the Claims Tribunal as 13 years.

6. Shri Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-

Insurance Company, further argues that the application of multiplier of 18 by the Claims Tribunal, placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, is also erroneous. As per the said judgment, a multiplier of 15 is required to be applied. He submits that the said aspect has recently been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and Others, 2022 Live-Law (SC) 841, wherein a multiplier of 15 for a minor below 15 years of age, has been applied. He further submits that a similar multiplier has been applied by the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2020) 7 SCC 256.

7. On the other hand, Shri Rishishwar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants- claimants submits that, insofar as the application of multiplier of 18 by the Claims Tribunal is concerned, the same does not call for interference. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Ku. Aarti