IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT GWALIOR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

<>

ON THE 7

<>

th

<>

OF JANUARY, 2026

<>

MISC. APPEAL No. 1278 of 2010

<>

SMT.GEETA DEVI AND OTHERS

<>

Versus

RAMJAN KHAN AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Smt.Meena Singhal - Advocate for appellants- claimants.

Shri B.K.Agrawal- Advocate for respondent No.3- Insurance

Company.

ORDER

<>

This misc. appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 has been filed by appellants- claimants seeking enhancement of

compensation awarded by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Ambah, District Moren (in '' the Claims Tribunal''), in Claim Case No.108 of

2008.

2. The Claims Tribunal, by its award dated 12th March 2010, granted

a total compensation of Rs.12,58,797/- with interest at the rate of 7% per

annum from the date of the award. The appellants are aggrieved by the

quantum of compensation awarded and, therefore, have preferred this appeal,

praying for its enhancement.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that deceased, Jaiveer Singh, was

a constable in Madhya Pradesh Police Department. The Claimants filed a

1 MA-1278-2010NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:655

claim petition before the Claims Tribunal, inter alia, stating that the deceased

was a responsible and hardworking individual, known for his dedication to

both his duties and his family. The deceased was the sole breadwinner for his

family, and his untimely death resulted in severe financial hardship for the

appellants, who are his legal heirs. The appellants are wife; son, parents

and stepmother of deceased. At the time of his death, deceased was earning a

monthly salary of Rs.14,000/- which he used to support his family. It was

averred that on 4th February 2008, the deceased, along with his colleague

Vaijnath Singh Jatav, was traveling on a motorcycle to execute court

warrants as part of his official duties. While traveling on the AB Road, near

Nayagaon Gate, Subhashpura Police Station, deceased’s motorcycle was

struck from behind by a tanker bearing registration number MH 04AL2588

(in short '' the offending vehicle). The tanker was being driven recklessly and

at high speed by respondent No.2- Vikram Singh, employed by respondent

No.1- Ramjan Khan (the owner of offending vehicle). As a result of the

collision, both the deceased and his colleague Vaijnath Singh Jatav died

instantaneously. The appellants, being the legal heirs of deceased, filed a

claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking

compensation for the loss of life of the deceased. They filed the claim

against driver, owner, and insurer of tanker. In the claim petition, they

claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.48,47,000/- for the loss of

dependency, loss of love and affection, and other heads of damages.

4. After conducting proceedings, framing issues, and considering the

oral and documentary evidence presented by parties, the Claims Tribunal

2 MA-1278-2010NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:655

granted a total compensation of Rs. 12,58,797/- along with interest at the rate

of 7% per annum from the date of impugned award.

5. The appellants have now approached this Court seeking an

enhancement in compensation amount.

6. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, it

is contended on behalf by learned Counsel for appellants that the income of

the deceased was not properly assessed by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims

Tribunal relied on a lower monthly income of deceased at Rs.10,280/-

instead of Rs.14,000/- which was actual salary of deceased. Monthly income

of Rs.14,000/- should have been considered for calculating the

compensation. The

<>

Claims Tribunal failed to consider the future prospects

of deceased. Since the deceased was a Government employee, he was likely

to receive promotions and increments in salary as per the Sixth Pay

Commission. The Claims Tribunal should have awarded compensation for

the loss of future prospects, and a sum of Rs.5 lac should have been added to

the compensation. The Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.60,000/- for the loss of

companionship, love, and affection is grossly inadequate. It is further

contended that a minimum of Rs. 1 lac should have been granted under this

head. Hence, the compensation amount be enhanced.

7.On the other hand, the learned counsel for Insurance Company has

supported the Award passed by the Claims Tribunal and submitted that the

compensation awarded was just and appropriate, considering the facts and

circumstances of the case. There is no ground to enhance the compensation,

and the appeal should be dismissed.

3 MA-1278-2010NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:655

8. In addition, the Insurance Company has filed a cross-objection

under Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC, challenging several findings of the

Claims Tribunal, including the findings on negligence, the multiplier applied,

and the income assessment. It is submitted that the accident was not solely

caused by negligence and that the Claims Tribunal erroneously applied the

multiplier of 16 instead of correct multiplier. It is submitted that the

appellants had filed a claim petition for compensation under Section 166 of

Motor Vehicles Act on 04.02.2008 for Rs.48,47,000/-stating that deceased

Jaiveer Singh died in an accident involving tanker No.MH 04 AL 2588.

Insurance company, had also submitted a counterclaim, denying the incident

and citing breach of insurance conditions as a defence, denying liability for

damages. After consideration, the Claims Tribunal passed a final award of

Rs.12,58,797/- along with 7% annual interest in the case. The award in

question passed by Claims Tribunal is not maintainable as it is against the

law and against the record. The incident caused by the vehicle in question

and due to its speeding and negligence was not duly proved, and there was a

mistake in not understanding it. The income of deceased accepted by

claimants was not certified, and legal taxes were not taken into consideration

for the same. Thus, considering the income to be higher, a higher award was

given, which is not tenable. The age of deceased was more than what was

considered (34 years), and the multiplier of 16 has been applied more than

necessary. The dependency was also considered more by two-thirds. The

Claims Tribunal failed to consider the legal aspect that, where there is a

higher award, it is not mandatory to apply coefficient according to the

4 MA-1278-2010NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:655

schedule. Thus, it applied a higher coefficient and wrongly held appellants

Nos. 3 and 5 eligible for compensation. Rs.60,000/- has been wrongly and

excessively awarded for mental and physical suffering, affection, and

Rs.15,000/- for rituals and rent, which is not permissible. The Claims

Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence and has awarded an

excessive amount. Additionally, it has awarded interest at a higher rate.

Therefore, having submitted the Cross-Objection, it is humbly requested that

the same be taken on record and the award in question be kindly revoked.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellants objected to the cross-

objection filed by Insurance Company and prayed for its rejection. It is

submitted by learned counsel for appellants that the Insurance Company,

having satisfied with the award, is not entitled to file cross-objection, and

the cross-objection is not maintainable. In support of her contention, she has

placed reliance on the decision of this Court in

<>

Smt. Sonam Devi and Others

<>

Vs. Rinki and Others, decided on 17th October 2023 in Misc. Appeal No.

<>

4011 of 2023.

<>

10. In reply, learned counsel for the Insurance Company by placing

reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Superintending Engineer and Others vs. B. Subba Reddy (1999) 4 SCC 423,

<>

contended that cross-objection is nothing but an appeal, a cross-appeal at

that. It may be that the respondent wanted to give a quietus to the whole

litigation by accepting the judgment and decree or order even if it was partly

against his interest. When, however, the other party challenged the same by

filing an appeal, the statute gave the respondent a second chance to file an

5 MA-1278-2010NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:655

appeal by way of cross-objection if he still felt aggrieved by the judgment

and decree or order.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. Subba Reddy(supra)

<>

has

held as under:-

"23. From the examination of these judgments and the provisions

Of Section 41 of the Act and Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code, in our

view, following principles emerge:

(1) Appeal is a substantive right. It is a creation of the statute.

Right to appeal does not exist unless it is specifically conferred,

(2) Cross objection is like an appeal. It has all the trappings of an

appeal. It is filed in the form of memorandum and the provisions

of Rule 1 of Order 41 of the Code, so far as these relate to the

form and contents of the memorandum of appeal apply to cross-

objection as well.

(3) Court fee is payable on cross-objection like that on the

memorandum of appeal. Provisions relating to appeals by indigent

person also apply to cross-objection.

(4) Everi Where the.appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for

default, cross-objection may nevertheless be heard and

determined.

(5) Respondent even though he has not appealed may support the

decree on any other ground but if wants to modify it, he has to file

cross-objection to the decree which objections he could have taken

earlier by filing an appeal. Time for filing objection which is in the

nature of appeal is extended by one month after service of notice

on him of the day fixed for hearing the appeal. This time could

also be extended by the Court like in appeal.

(6) Cross-objection is nothing but an appeal, a cross-appeal at that.

It may be that the respondent wanted to give quietus to whole

litigation by his accepting the judgment and decree or order even

if it was partly against his interest. When, however, the other party

challenged the same by filing an appeal statute gave the

respondent a second chance to file an appeal by way of cross-

objection if he still felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree or

order."

12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully

considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.

<>

Subba Reddy (supra),

<>

this Court is of the opinion that cross-objection filed

by the Insurance Company is maintainable. Even though the Insurance

Company has expressed satisfaction with the award, the law allows for a

6 MA-1278-2010NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:655

cross-objection when a respondent feels aggrieved by certain aspects of the

judgment, especially when the appellant(s) has raised a challenge to the

award. Thus, the Insurance Company, having raised valid concerns

regarding the negligence findings, multiplier, and other aspects of award, is

well within its rights to file a cross-objection. This Court, therefore, allows

cross-objection of Insurance Company, taking into consideration the

submissions made, and principles of law established by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. The cross-objection is hence taken on record.

<>

13. The only question remains for consideration of enhancement of

compensation amount.

14 On perusal of documents (Ex.P1 to Ex.P3), it is clear that the gross

salary of deceased was Rs.10,282/- and his net salary was Rs.8,212/-. The

Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 8,537/-

after adding professional tax of Rs. 125/-

15. In the case of Sunil Sharma vs. Bachitar Singh and Others reported

<>

in 2011 AIR SCW 2811,

<>

the Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to computation of

compensation of income of deceased, has held that house rent allowance,

CCA and medical allowance should be taken into consideration, so also

amount of EPF and GIS should be included in the income of deceased but

computer advance should not form part of monthly salary. Similar view has

been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raghuvir Singh Motolya

<>

and Others vs. Hari Singh Malviya and Others reported in (2009) 15 SCC

<>

363

<>

wherein it was held that HRA and DA should have been included for

determining income of deceased.

7 MA-1278-2010NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:655

16. The citation as relied upon by the Counsel for the appellants in the

case of Manorma Sinha and Another vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental

<>

Insurance Company Limited and Another reported in 2025(4) TAC 353

<>

(SC),

<>

the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 12 has observed as under:-

"12. Now, the next question is whether allowances are to be added

to the salary for determining the multiplicand. In National

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava & Ors.6 it was held that

“the term income has different connotations for different purposes.

A court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions

consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the

employee carries home at the end of the month but also other

perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family”. In

Vijay Kumar Rastogi v. Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport

Corporation7 a three-Judge Bench of this court noticing earlier

decisions on the point observed that “the income should include

those benefits, either in terms of money or See: Sarla Verma &

Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121,

paragraph 42, affirmed in National Insurance Company Limited v.

Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, paragraph 59.6. (2008)

2 SCC 763, paragraph 9 2018 SCC OnLine SC 193 paragraph 11

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 19878/2022 otherwise, which are

taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of income tax

or professional tax, although some elements thereof may not be

taxable due to exemption conferred thereupon under the statute.”

Following the decision in Vijay Kumar Rastogi (supra) in

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nalini & Ors.8 it was held by

this Court that the emoluments and the benefits accruing to the

deceased under various heads for the purposes of computation of

loss of income, ought to be included irrespective of whether they

are taxable or not. Thus, in our view, the High Court erred in

excluding the allowances from the computation to arrive at the

multiplicand. Hence, the total monthly income was rightly

computed by the Tribunal at Rs.53,367."

17. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

above cited cases, on perusal of impugned record of the Claims Tribunal, it

is found that the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in holding the

monthly income of deceased at Rs. 8537/- per month whereas the monthly

income of deceased is Rs.10,282/-. The deceased was working in Madhya

Pradesh Police Department. His date of birth is 05-06-1966 whereas the

8 MA-1278-2010NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:655

alleged accident was happened on 04-02-2008, therefore, his age is more

than 41 years i.e. in between 41 to 45 years, therefore, the multiplier of 14

should be applied in stead of multiplier of 16. Accordingly, the claimants

are entitled to get the following compensation amount:-

Head

<>

Amount (Rs.)

<>

Income (Rs. 10,282 X 13 months)

<>

1,33,666/-

Deduction of Professional Tax

<>

(2,500)

Net Income After Deduction

<>

1,31,166/-

Deduction for 3/4th (Dependency)

<>

(98,374/-)

Multiplier (14)

<>

13,77,236/-

Future Prospects @ 30%

<>

4,13,091/-

Total (Loss of Dependency)

<>

17,90,406/-

Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000 X 4)

<>

1,60,000/-

Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses

<>

30,000/-

Total Compensation

<>

19,80,406/-

<>

18. Thus, just and proper amount of compensation is

Rs.19,80,406/-

<>

against the award of the Claims Tribunal of Rs.12,58,797/-

Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to additional sum of Rs.7,21,609/-

<>

over and above the amount, which has been awarded by the Claims

Tribunal.

19. In the result, the misc. appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the

compensation amount by a sum of Rs.7,21,609/-

<>

and the enhanced amount

shall carry interest from the date of payment of Court fees by the appellants

in the present appeal (as per judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this

Court (Jabalpur Bench) relied by learned Counsel for the Insurance

Company in the case o f Smt. Munni Bai and Others vs. Mujaffar Hussain and

<>

Another, decided on 11th of December, 2023 passed in MA No. 4544 of

<>

9 MA-1278-2010NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:655

(HIRDESH)

<>

JUDGE

<>

2019)

<>

. The said enhanced amount be paid within a period of three months

from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Rest of conditions as

imposed by Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. If the enhanced amount of

compensation is in excess to the valuation in the misc. appeal, the difference

of Court fee (if not already paid) shall be deposited by the appellants-

claimants within a period of one month and proof thereof, shall be submitted

before the Registry and thereafter, the Registry shall issue the certified copy

of the order passed today.

20. The instant misc. appeal stands disposed of

<>

to the extent indicated

hereinabove.

10 MA-1278-2010NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:655