IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT INDORE

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI

<>

ON THE 19

<>

th

<>

OF JANUARY, 2026

<>

MISC. APPEAL No. 1044 of 2018

<>

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

<>

Versus

PRAKASH SHIVHARE AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Manish Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.2.

Shri Shahid Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and 4.

WITH

<>

MISC. APPEAL No. 1045 of 2018

<>

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

<>

Versus

MANISH JAISWAL AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Manish Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.1.

MISC. APPEAL No. 1046 of 2018

<>

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

<>

Versus

RAMESHWARI CHOUKSE AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

<>

Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Manish Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.1.

Shri Shahid Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and 4.

1 MA-1044-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1595

MISC. APPEAL No. 1047 of 2018

<>

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

<>

Versus

PRAKASH SHIVHARE AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Shahid Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and 4.

MISC. APPEAL No. 1048 of 2018

<>

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.

<>

Versus

MUKESH AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Manish Jain - Advocate for the respondent No. 1.

Shri Shahid Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and 3.

MISC. APPEAL No. 1049 of 2018

<>

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

<>

Versus

SHOBHARAM SHENDE AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Manish Jain - Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and 2.

Shri Shahid Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and 4.

MISC. APPEAL No. 1051 of 2018

<>

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

<>

Versus

SANTOSH SHIVHARE AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Manish Jain - Advocate for the respondent No. 1.

2 MA-1044-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1595

Shri Shahid Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and 3.

MISC. APPEAL No. 1427 of 2018

<>

SHOBHARAM AND OTHERS

<>

Versus

ABHIJEET AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Manish Jain - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.3.

MISC. APPEAL No. 1429 of 2018

<>

PRAKASH AND OTHERS

<>

Versus

ABHIJEET AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Manish Jain - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.3.

MISC. APPEAL No. 1431 of 2018

<>

PRAKASH AND OTHERS

<>

Versus

ABHIJEET AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Manish Jain - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.3.

MISC. APPEAL No. 1435 of 2018

<>

SANTOSH

<>

Versus

ABHIJEET AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Manish Jain - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.3.

3 MA-1044-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1595

MISC. APPEAL No. 1437 of 2018

<>

MANISH

<>

Versus

ABHIJEET AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Manish Jain - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.3.

MISC. APPEAL No. 1440 of 2018

<>

RAMESHWAR AND OTHERS

<>

Versus

ABHIJEET AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Manish Jain - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.3.

Reserved on : 24.11.2025

<>

Pronounced on : 19.01.2026

<>

ORDER

<>

This bunch of appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1988') have been filed against the

common award dated 30.11.2017 passed in Claim Case Nos. 13/2017,

14/2017, 15/2017, 16/2017, 17/2017, 18/2017 and 26/2017. This bunch of

appeals has two sets, M.A.Nos. 1044/2018, 1045/2018, 1046/2018,

1047/2018, 1048/2018, 1049/2018 and 1051/2018 have been filed by the

insurance company and M.A.Nos. 1427/2018, 1429/2018, 1431/2018,

1435/2018, 1437/2018 and 1440/2018 have been filed by the claimants. The

insurance company has come challenging the award on the ground that in

4 MA-1044-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1595

absence of a valid fitness certificate, it could not have been saddled with the

liability to pay compensation whereas, claimants have come for enhancement

of compensation.

Facts of the case in brief are as under :

<>

2. On 10.02.2016 at about 11:30 pm deceased Akash, Hemant,

Rajesh, Deepak and injured Mukesh, Manish & Santosh were going in

innova care bearing registration No. MP 09 CH 0004 from Ujjain to Maksi.

When they reached near Shivshakti Warehouse on Ujjain-Maksi Road, pick

up vehicle bearing registration No. MH 10 AQ 1639 came from the front

side, the driver of which was driving the same in rash and negligent manner

and dashed into the innova car head-on because of which all the above said

persons sustained grievous injuries and four persons died due the said

injuries. The innova car was being driven by Deepak.

3. The Claims Tribunal after recording evidence concluded that it is a

case of composite negligence as the driver of pickup vehicle as well as the

driver of the innova car (Deepak) both were negligent. As such, in the claim

filed by the legal representatives of Deepak, he was held responsible for 60%

contributory negligence and in other cases, the principle of composite

negligence was followed. As such, against the insurance company direction

was given for payment of compensation.

Submissions of the counsel for the parties

<>

4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits

that the accident occurred on 10.02.2016 whereas, the fitness certificate of

the pick-up vehicle was valid only up to 29.01.2016 which was duly

5 MA-1044-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1595

established vide letter dated 05.09.2017 (Exh.D/1), certificate (Exh. D/2) and

information regarding fitness certificate (Exh. D/3 & D/4) as well as based

on insurance police (Exh.D/5) this will amount to breach of terms of

insurance policy. He further submits that on perusal of Exh. D/2, it would

come to the fore that pickup vehicle No. MH 10 AQ 1639 was registered in

the name of one Abhijeet M.Joshi of which fitness certificate was valid from

21.06.2016 to 21.06.2017. However, the Claims Tribunal while considering

this aspect has completely over-looked the same and in terms of para 30 of

the impugned award it has been held that the insurance company is liable to

pay compensation. Learned counsel submits that this direction of the Claims

Tribunal is contrary to the settled position of law as rendered by the Full

Bench of High Court of Kerala in the case of Pareed Pillai vs. Oriental

<>

Insurance Co. Ltd., 2019 ACJ 16 (Kerala)

<>

, Division Bench of High Court of

Judicature at Madras in the case of Commissioner, Tiruppur Municipality vs.

<>

K.Marayammal & Ors., 2025 ACJ 881

<>

as well as High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Uma Tripathi &

<>

Ors., 2020 ACJ 1675

<>

.

5. Controverting to the arguments of the learned counsel for the

insurance company, the learned counsel appearing for the owner argues that

in order to establish breach of terms of the insurance policy the insurance

company has led evidence of Vivekmadhav Rahalkar (NAW-1) who was

working in the insurance company on the post of Assistant Manager.

Learned counsel submits that this witness has clearly admitted that there was

no condition in the insurance policy regarding fitness and this aspect has

6 MA-1044-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1595

been taken note of by the Claims Tribunal in para 28 of the impugned

award. He further submits that it is settled position of law that mere absence

of fitness certificate would not absolve the insurance company from its

liability to pay compensation. In support of his contentions, learned counsel

places reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of National

<>

Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunita Markam & Ors., 2022 ACJ 1799

<>

and judgment

passed by the High Court of Karnataka (Division Bench) in the case of

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kumara & Ors., MFA No. 7792 of

<>

2015(MV)

<>

.

6. As regards the submissions of learned counsel for the claimants,

he submits that in view of the settled position of law as has been held by this

Court, the liability is of the insurance company to pay compensation. He

further submits in any case, if this Court finds that there is infraction of

condition of insurance policy then also the claimants being third party have

no concern with the same and for the dispute between the owner and insurer,

claimants should not be made to suffer. Thus, in any case pay and recover

should be directed if it is found that the insurance company is not liable to

pay compensation.

7. As regards the question of enhancement of compensation, learned

counsel for the claimants submits that contributory negligence for Deepak is

based only on spot map which is not permissible under the law. He points out

that there is no cross-examination of the driver or the owner of the pickup

vehicle. He further submits that no amount of compensation for loss of

consortium has been awarded in the case of Deepak.

7 MA-1044-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1595

8. As regards claim of LRs of Akash, learned counsel submits that

income tax returns of Akash were on record, however the same has not been

considered. In this case also, the claimants raised the question of

compensation for loss of consortium.

9. Controverting to the submissions of learned counsel for the

claimants, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the

income tax return (Exh. P/13) was not proved.

10. In case of LRs of Rajesh, learned counsel for the claimants

submits that incorrect multiplier has been applied. The claimants should

have been paid compensation based on salary certificate (Exh. P/19). In this

case also, compensation for loss of consortium has not been paid.

11. However, controverting to the same, learned counsel for the

insurance company submits that to prove Exh.P/19, no one from the

employer came and there are no signatures or seal on the said document.

Thus, the same cannot be relied up on as the same was never proved.

12. In the case of LRs of Mukesh, learned counsel for the claimants

submits that he should have been treated as skilled labour considering the

fact that he was a student of Engineering and in this case also no amount of

compensation for loss of consortium has been awarded.

13. In the case of injured Santosh (M.A.No.1435/2018), meager

amount has been awarded which mostly is for expenditure incurred for the

treatment. Similar is the case of Manish in M.A.No. 1437/2018. He thus

prays for enhancement of amount of compensation.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

<>

8 MA-1044-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1595

14. The appeals by the insurance company are based on a singular

ground that the accident occurred on 10.02.2016 whereas the fitness

certificate was valid only up to 29.01.2016 and thereafter it was renewed for

the period from 21.06.2016 to 21.06.2017 which was duly established by the

insurance company by leading evidence. However, there is a clear

admission of the witness of the insurance company Vivekmadhav Rahalkar

(NAW-1) to the effect that there was complete absence of any condition

regarding fitness certificate in the insurance policy. The issue with respect to

liability of the insurance company to pay compensation even if there is

absence of valid fitness certificate is no more res integra as this Court in the

case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Manoj and Ors., 2014 ACJ 2389

<>

in

para 9 has held as under :

''9. After hearing Mr. Manoj Jain, in the considered opinion of this court, as per the

defence taken by the insurance company, the violation of the terms and conditions of

the policy has been pleaded due to non-availability of fitness certificate. As per the

company, it is clear that no such condition has been specified in the policy, however,

merely non-production of the fitness certificate would not prevent (sic) the finding

recorded by the Tribunal. In addition to the aforesaid, it may safely be observed that

until and unless violation of the conditions stipulated under section 149 has been

specified and established before the Tribunal, the finding of joint and several liability

so recorded does not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference in this

appeal. In view of the foregoing discussion, in the considered opinion of this court,

the appeal filed by the appellate is devoid of any substance, hence dismissed in

limine.''

15. Considering the case of Manoj (supra)

<>

, the position of law was

reiterated by this Court in the case of Sunita (supra)

<>

in para 8 of the

judgment which is reproduced below :

''8. In the present case, admittedly, till the accident took place, permit was not

cancelled and even otherwise permit is not mandatory for a fire brigade as is

apparent from clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 and once it is held that permit is not mandatory, then the issue of fitness, on

which permit depends, becomes secondary. Even there is no condition in the

insurance policy laying down that absence of fitness certificate will be a ground to

repudiate the policy. Therefore, when these facts are cumulatively taken into

consideration, then appeals are, admittedly, devoid of merit in as much as there is an

9 MA-1044-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1595

exception in clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 66 of Motor Vehicles Act and so

also in the light of the judgment of the Indore Bench of this court in the case of

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Manoj (supra).''

16. Although, in the case of Sunita (supra)

<>

there were some facts

which was distinguishable from the facts of the present case, however, it is

clearly available in evidence on record that in the insurance policy there was

no condition with respect to the fitness certificate, as such the case is

squarely covered with the ratio in the case of Manoj (supra)

<>

. Apart from this,

the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka while considering this aspect

of absence of fitness certificate has considered the provisions of Section 56,

84 and 86 of Act of 1988 and concluded that Section 86(1) of the Act

provides that if any condition of permit specified in Section 84 of the Act is

breached, then also the competent authority is required to given an

opportunity of hearing to the holder of the permit before cancellation of

registration. It is thus, clear that absence of fitness certificate will not result

in automatic cancellation of registration as the aspect of fitness certificate is

also covered under the above mentioned provisions. As such, it would not

absolve the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation,

particularly when there was complete absence of any condition regarding

fitness certificate in the insurance policy.

17. Although reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the

insurance company on the judgment of jurisdictional High Courts, however

in view of the two decisions as aforementioned passed by the Coordinate

Benches of this Court, it is hereby held that the insurance company is liable

<>

to pay compensation and the conclusions drawn by the Claims Tribunal in

<>

this regard are not required to be interfered with.

<>

10 MA-1044-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1595

18. As regards the question of enhancement of compensation, the

same is dealt with in the following paragraphs :

M.A.No. 1427 of 2018

<>

19. The Claims Tribunal while considering the claim of Deepak -

driver of the innova vehicle has concluded from para 20 to 25 that deceased

Deepak was responsible for 60% contributory negligence. The learned

counsel for the claimants has argued that there was complete absence of any

material to establish contributory negligence of Deepak and the conclusions

have been drawn by Tribunal only on the basis of spot map which is not

permissible under the law. In support of his submissions he has placed

reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court given in the case of

Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Co. & Ors., 2018 ACJ SC 1300.

<>

20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangla Ram (supra)

<>

has

held that merely spot map cannot be a basis for proving contributory

negligence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 23 of the judgment has held as

under:

''23. Be that as it may, the next question is whether the Tribunal was justified in

concluding that the appellant was also negligent and had contributed equally, which

finding rests only on the site map (Exh. 2) indicating the spot where the motorcycle

was lying after the accident? We find substance in the criticism of the appellant that

the spot where the motor vehicle was found lying after the accident cannot be the

basis to assume that it was driven in or around that spot at the relevant time. It can

be safely inferred that after the accident of this nature in which the appellant suffered

severe injuries necessitating amputation of his right leg above the knee level, the

motorcycle would be pushed forward after the collision and being hit by a high

speeding jeep. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court has found that the spot noted

in the site map, one foot wrong side on the middle of the road was the spot where the

accident actually occurred. However, the finding is that as per the site map, the

motorcycle was found lying at that spot. That cannot be the basis to assume that the

appellant was driving the motorcycle on the wrong side of the road at the relevant

time. Further, the respondents did not produce any contra evidence to indicate that

the motorcycle was being driven on the wrong side of the road at the time when the

offending vehicle dashed it. In this view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal

that the appellant contributed to the occurrence of the accident by driving the

11 MA-1044-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1595

motorcycle on the wrong side of the road, is manifestly wrong and cannot be

sustained. The High Court has not expressed any opinion on this issue, having

already answered the issue about the non-involvement of the offending vehicle in

favour of respondent Nos.2 & 3.''

21. In the present case, facts are different, in the spot map not only

the place where the vehicles are lying but also the exact place where the

accident occurred are shown, the spot of accident is on the side where the

road is going towards Ujjain from Maksi, whereas it was also recorded that

the Innova Car which was being driven by deceased Deepak was going

towards Maksi, it is thus clear that the vehicle was going wrong side. And not

only this, the counsel of the Insurance Company put many questions to the

witnesses which have elaborately been dealt with by the tribunal from para

20 to 25 particularly in para 23 and 24, as such it is not a case where

circumstances exists for taking adverse inference against the insurance

company or the owner or even the driver of the offending insured vehicle, as

such, the case of Vimla Devi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2019 ACJ 454

<>

SC

<>

will also not come to the rescue of the claimants as the facts of the that

case are also distinguishable from the facts of the present case. As such, as

regards the question of contributory negligence of the driver of the Innova

Car namely deceased 'Deepak', no infirmity is found in the conclusions

drawn by the claims tribunal, however, the extent of the same is should have

been considered at 50% for the reason that apart from position of the

vehicles and their head-on collision no evidence of any sort has come on

record which would have shown that Deepak was more negligent than the

driver of the other vehicle. Thus, the contributory negligence of Deepak is

taken at 50%.

12 MA-1044-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1595

22. As regards the quantum of compensation, the deceased Deepak

was 25 years of age. As such, multiplier of 18 would apply. Considering

the minimum wages for skilled labour at the relevant time was Rs. 8810/- per

month, which is taken as his income, then the compensation for loss of

dependency will come to Rs. 6,66,036/- (after deducting 50% for

contributory negligence). Considering the fact that the claimants are mother

and father of the deceased, as such both of them are hereby awarded Rs.

40,000/- each for loss of consortium, as such total comes to Rs. 7,46,036/-.

The Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs. 4,56,809/-.Thus, the

compensation in respect of claimants of deceased Deepak is enhanced by Rs.

2,89,227/-, which shall be paid to him over and above the amount already

awarded by the claims tribunal.

M.A.No. 1429/2018

<>

23. In this case, the Tribunal has considered the income of the

deceased Akash from para 39 to 43 and after discarding the income tax

return filed as (Exh.P/15) and the computation (Exh.P/14), has treated his

income at Rs. 1,13,260/- per annum. The learned counsel for the claimants

submitted that there was no occasion for the Claims Tribunal to discard the

clear income tax return which were not only based on record but duly

approved. He submits that it has wrongly been recorded in para 41 that there

was no business of the appellant mentioned in the returns, whereas the same

was duly written. It has also been pointed out that the income tax return was

filed before the death of Akash in the accident, as such the amount as has

been shown as income of the deceased should be taken as his income on the

13 MA-1044-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1595

date of accident and consequently, compensation should be enhanced.

24. Considering the fact that the return was filed before the death of

deceased Akash wherein his income is shown as Rs. 2,93,260/- per annum

which is bifurcated as an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- as salary and Rs.

1,13,260/- as travelling commission. As such, the same is taken as income

of the deceased Akash. It is hereby held that the Akash was earning Rs.

2,93,000/- per annum as per the return Exh.P/15. Apart from this, an amount

of Rs. 40,000/- each is awarded to the mother and father of the deceased who

are the claimants in the present as compensation for loss of consortium. As

such, the appellants are entitled for payment of enhanced amount of

compensation of Rs. 23,44,724/- over and above the amount already awarded

by the claims tribunal.

M.A.No. 1431/2018

<>

25. It is argued in the present case that the deceased-Rajesh was a

bachelor and was working as reception manager and earning Rs. 8,000/- per

month in support of which salary certificate (Exh.P/18) was placed on

record. However, the certificate was issued after his death i.e. 05.07.2016

whereas the accident occurred in the month of February, 2016. However, it

has to be considered that the deceased was working as reception manager.

Thus, he can be considered as an unskilled labour and his income should be

taken at Rs. 6,575/- per month. Consequently, the compensation for loss of

dependency would now come to Rs. 9,38,910/- and after awarding Rs.

40,000/- each to the claimants i.e. mother and father of the deceased for loss

of consortium, the total enhanced amount of compensation for which the

14 MA-1044-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1595

appellants are entitled is Rs. 10,48,910/-, however the claims tribunal in para

88 of the impugned award has held that as the claimant kiranbai has also

been awarded compensation for loss of dependency in the case no. 13/2017

thus it would be appropriate to award only 50% of the awarded amount,

while observing thus the claims tribunal referred to para 15 of the judgment

in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport (2009) 6 SCC 121

<>

, however

the reliance as placed by the tribunal is misplaced in as much as in the said

case Hon'ble Apex Court in para 32 held that even if deceased is survived by

parents and siblings only the mother would be considered to be dependent

and 50% will be deducted for personal expenses of the bachelor. In the

present case while calculating loss of dependency 50% have already been

deducted thus now again 50% deduction on account of the fact that in

relation to same accident same claimant is being paid compensation for death

of another family member, is totally unacceptable and irrelevant as such the

claimant Kiranbai is entitled for the entire amount calculated by this court.

As such, after deducting the amount of Rs. 4,79,100/- awarded by the claims

tribunal, the appellant Kiranbai is entitled for payment of Rs. 5,69,810/- over

and above the amount already awarded by the claims tribunal.

M.A.No. 1435/2018

<>

26. In this case, the injured appellant-Santosh suffered injuries for

which a total compensation of Rs. 52,130/- was awarded out of which an

amount of Rs. 40,000/- was for medical expenses. The documents regarding

his fracture are placed on record as Exh. P/76. However, a perusal of the

document would show that there was complete absence of any document to

15 MA-1044-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1595

establish that he received any grievous injury. In the considered view of this

Court there is no perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal in para

91 to 94 with respect to injured Santosh. As such, in this case, no

enhancement is warranted.

M.A.No. 1437/2018

<>

27. In this case, in respect of injured appellant-Manish, the Tribunal

has recorded its findings from para 58 to 63. In the considered view of this

Court, there is no perversity in the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal,

hence no interference is warranted.

M.A.No. 1440/2014.

<>

28. In this case, the Tribunal has considered the fact that deceased-

Hemant was a student of Civil Engineering in Chouksey Government

Polytechnique College, Rajgarh, thus he was having a bright future. Thus,

his income was considered Rs. 8,000/- per month and consequently,

compensation was awarded. Thus, considering him a semi-skilled labour, his

income was treated at Rs. 7,057/- per month. The learned counsel for the

appellant has pointed out that he should have been considered at least a

skilled person for which the minimum wages at the relevant time was Rs.

8,810/- per month. However, it is seen from the evidence which is placed on

record that the claimants themselves have claimed the income of the

deceased Hemant at Rs. 8,000/- per month which is taken as his income.

Considering the fact that the claimants are mother and father, Rs. 40,000/-

each is awarded for loss of consortium to both of them. Thus, the enhanced

amount of compensation in this case would be Rs. 13,19,600/- and after

16 MA-1044-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1595

(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)

<>

JUDGE

<>

deducting already awarded amount of Rs. 10,97,022/-, the appellants are

entitled for payment of Rs. 2,22,578/- over and above the amount already

awarded by the claims tribunal.

29. In all the appeals where amount of compensation has been

enhanced, the amount of enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the

rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing claim petition before the

tribunal till the date of its payment. As already held above, the Insurance

company shall be liable to pay the entire amount of compensation.

30. In view of the above analysis of evidence and findings, appeals

M.A.No. 1044/2018, 1045/2018, 1046/2018, 1047/2018, 1048/2018,

1049/2018, 1051/2018, 1435/2018 and 1437/2018 are hereby dismissed.

Appeals No. 1427/2018, 1429/2018, 1431/2018 and 1440/2018 are partly

allowed in above terms.

Let a copy of this order be placed in all the connected appeals.

Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back.

vidya

17 MA-1044-2018NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1595