Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 378 (MP)

Rajni v. Dinesh

2025-07-02

PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2025
ORDER 1. The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the award dated 31.7.2023 passed in MACC No.1056/2022. The factum of accident, liability of the Insurance Company and the dependency of the claimants is not in disputed. 2. Short facts of the case giving rise to the case are that on 2.2.2022 deceased Ajay accompanied with his wife Rajni, son Aayog and daughter Riya were going by motorcycle from village Bikhron to village Nimarani for attending a marriage ceremony. When they reached near Shanti Ashram, Maheshwar Road, Sanjay Nagar, Dhamnod a truck came from the side of Maheshwar bearing registration No. M.P. 11 G. 3164 which was driven by driver of the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The truck directly dashed into the motorcycle of the deceased Ajay because of which Ajay and son Aayog had died at the spot itself and Rajni, the present appellant No.1 sustained grievous injuries. The incident was reported at Police Station Dhamnod. 3. The appellants filed claim petition under section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 for compensation for the death of deceased Ajay in the above stated accident. The claims tribunal after considering the evidence which was brought on record by the parties assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.13,92,300/- and has also awarded compensation in other heads. Thus a total compensation at Rs.15,57,300/- was awarded by the claims tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of the findings recorded by the claims tribunal in Para 13, 21 and 32 of the award it is clear that at the time of death deceased was of the age of 27 years and he was salaried employee working in a private concern. He submits that the deceased was working in a private store of construction material and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. The tribunal has erred in calculating the income of the deceased on notional basis and that too by treating him an unskilled labourer. He further submits that even if the deceased treated to be an unskilled labour then also the income on notional basis would not be Rs.6,500/-. In view of the clear guidelines issued by the State Legal Services Authority which have been endorsed by the Labour Department of the State. He further submits that even if the deceased treated to be an unskilled labour then also the income on notional basis would not be Rs.6,500/-. In view of the clear guidelines issued by the State Legal Services Authority which have been endorsed by the Labour Department of the State. He further submits that in para 39 and 40 of the impugned award the claims tribunal has considered the compensation for loss of consortium and after recording a finding to the effect that all the appellants / claimants are entitled for amount of consortium has held that each of them be awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/-. Thus total calculation of Rs.2,00,000/- has been given in para 39 of the award and then in para 40 it has been observed that in view of the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 an increased of 10% is to be done in the amount of consortium but while calculating the compensation in para 51 the amount of consortium has been taken at Rs.1,32,000/-, which is infact contrary to the very own conclusions of the claims tribunal in Para 39 and 40 of the award. Thus he submits that the resultant compensation to the claimants / appellants is lower than what should have been awarded by the claims tribunal. Hence he prays for enhancement of compensation. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 / Insurance Company supports the findings of the award and submits that the income has rightly been assessed at Rs.6500/-. He refers to the findings of the claims tribunal in Para 31 and 32, specifically the findings recorded in para 31 and submits that the claims tribunal has clearly recorded that the claimants /appellants have not brought any material proving the income of the appellants as Rs.18,000/- per month. Thus he submits that there is no fault in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs.6500/-. He further submits that the loss of consortium is also awarded properly, thus he requests that no interference in the award is needed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Thus he submits that there is no fault in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs.6500/-. He further submits that the loss of consortium is also awarded properly, thus he requests that no interference in the award is needed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. First and foremost the claims tribunal in Para 39 and 40 of the award has given a clear conclusion that each of the five claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- as compensation under the head of consortium and then went ahead to total it at Rs.2,00,000/-. In Para 40, 10% addition has been made for the efflux of time in terms of the law as laid down by the apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 . Thus the calculation of compensation for loss of consortium by the tribunal itself was Rs.2,20,000/- but in the ultimate assessment of the compensation in para 51 this amount has been taken to be Rs.1,32,000/- without any discussion about such reduction. Thus the amount of loss of consortium is hereby modified to Rs.2,20,000/-. 8. As regards the assessment of income of the deceased it has come on record in para 31 and 32 that he was working in a store of construction material, thus if he is treated as an unskilled labour and his income is taken on notional basis then too in terms of the guidelines issued by the State Legal Services Authority which have been endorsed by the Labour Department of the State at the relevant time, ie., the date of accident upto 2.2.2022 the notional income of an unskilled labour has been indicated as Rs.8,800/- per month which should have been taken by the claims tribunal as a notional income of the deceased. In view of the above modification, the compensation for loss of dependency would comes to Rs.18,84,960/-. 9. As regards the compensation awarded by the claims tribunal in other heads the same appears to be just and proper. Thus after modifications as mentioned herein above the total compensation would come to Rs.21,58,960/-. The claims tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.15,57,300/-. As such the appellants are now entitled for payment of Rs.6,01,660/- over and above the amount already awarded by the claims tribunal. Thus after modifications as mentioned herein above the total compensation would come to Rs.21,58,960/-. The claims tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.15,57,300/-. As such the appellants are now entitled for payment of Rs.6,01,660/- over and above the amount already awarded by the claims tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry the interest at the same rate and in the same manner as awarded by the claims tribunal. Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain intact. 10. The appellants have valued the appeal at Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus they are required to pay deficit Court fees which shall be paid by them within a period of 15 days from today. 11. With the above modification, the appeal stands disposed off.