logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MPHC 338 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Case No : MISC. Appeal No. 4161 of 2011
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
Parties : Jameela Versus Rajendra & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: Dinesh Upadhyay, Advocate. For the Respondents: Diwakar Nath Shukla, Shrishti Lodhi, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 30-09-2026
Head Note :-
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) -

Comparative Citations:
2026 MPHC-JBP 78425,
Judgment :-

1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the M.V. Act, 1988") being aggrieved by the award dated 19.04.2011 passed by the III Additional Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tikamgarh (M.P.), in Claim Case No.09/2011, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation amount sum of Rs.3,44,000/- in favour of appellant.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the deceased Mohd Ali Shah died in a motor accident on 30.09.2009 when he reached near Neta Dhaba National Highway Jhansi, Niwari, he was hit by respondent No.1 driver of the offending vehicle Indigo Car bearing registration No.MP-16-C-3414. The offending vehicle was registered in the name of respondent No.2 and was insured with respondent No.3/Insurance Company at the time of accident. The appellant being legal representative of the deceased filed an application under Section 166 of M.V. Act for compensation, which was allowed. The appellant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation on the grounds of use of multiplier, monthly income, addition of future prospects and other conventional heads.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, whereas the minimum wages applicable to semi-skilled labour on the date of the accident were Rs.3,900/- per month. It is further contended that the amount towards future prospects and the conventional heads has also not been properly considered.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. It is not in dispute that the deceased Mohd Ali Shad died in a motor accident while respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle and hit the deceased due to which he sustained injuries leading to his death. It is also not in dispute that the offending vehicle was registered in the name of respondent No.2 on the date of accident and was insured with respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

6. The record shows that the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of the accident. The monthly income is accordingly taken at Rs.3,900/-. An addition of 40% towards future prospects would bring the monthly income to Rs.5,460/- (Rs.3,900/- + Rs.1,560/-). The annual income would thus come to Rs.65,520/- (Rs.5,460/- × 12).

7. Since the deceased was unmarried, 50% of the annual income is required to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. After such deduction, the annual dependency comes to Rs.32,760/- (Rs.65,520/- ÷ 2). Applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,89,680/- (Rs.32,760/- × 18).

8. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid calculation, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,89,680/-.

9. The learned Claims Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,44,000/-. Accordingly, on the aforesaid calculation, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.2,45,680/- (Rs.5,89,680/- minus Rs.3,44,000/-).

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.3,44,000/- to Rs.5,89,680/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate and from the date as directed by the learned Claims Tribunal.

11. The remaining terms and conditions of the award shall remain unaltered. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal