Smt Shanti vs Vikram Dangi

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32677
1 MA-8484-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
th
ON THE 26 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 8484 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC030272292025
SMT SHANTI AND OTHERS
Versus
VIKRAM DANGI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashfaq Khan & Ms. Ankita Tomar - learned Counsel for
appellants- claimants.
Shri Satendra Singh Rawat- learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and
2.
Shri Ram Vilas Sharma- learned Counsel for respondent No.3-
Insurance Company.
ORDER
I.A.No.8042 of 2025
Heard on I.A. No. 8042 of 2025, an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 filed on behalf of the appellants/claimants seeking
condonation of delay of 98 days in filing the appeal.
It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that they are poor persons
and are not conversant with the technicalities of law. After some time and
upon due consultation with their legal counsel, they preferred the present
appeal. It is further submitted that the appeal has been filed bona fide and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:25:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32677
2 MA-8484-2025
that the present litigation is in the nature of welfare litigation. Therefore, it is

prayed that the application be allowed in the interest of justice.
Upon due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application and
in the absence of any written objection from the other side, IA No. 8042 of
2025 is allowed, and the delay of 98 days in filing the appeal is hereby
condoned.
M.A.No.8484/2025:-
1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the
matter is heard on the question of admission and final disposal.
2. The instant miscellaneous appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”) has been
preferred by appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation,
whereby learned Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Datia (hereinafter
referred to as “the Claims Tribunal”), vide impugned Award dated
11.04.2025 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 110 of 2024, has
awarded compensation of Rs.5,58,020/- along with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization on
account of the death of deceased Lalaram in a motor accident.
3. In brief, the facts of the case, as pleaded by the claimants before the
learned Claims Tribunal, are that on 22.03.2024, at about 5:00 p.m.,
deceased Lalaram, along with his son Shivkumar alias Harishankar Dangi
and Charansingh, was returning to his village Paawai on a motorcycle after
attending a Terahvi ceremony at village Bhikhar. When they reached near the
Dariyapur Canal siphon on the Datia–Bhander Road, Charansingh stopped
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:25:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32677
3 MA-8484-2025
the motorcycle on the roadside, whereupon Lalaram and Shivkumar also got

down. At that time, a Maruti car bearing registration No. UP-16-AE-6983,
allegedly being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently at a high
speed, struck Lalaram and Shivkumar, who were standing beside the road,
causing grievous injuries to both of them. The accident was witnessed by
Charnsingh and other persons present at the spot. Immediately after the
accident, Lalaram and Shivkumar were taken to the District Hospital, Datia,
by a 108 ambulance. Considering the critical condition of Lalaram, he was
referred to Gwalior, where he received treatment at Medical College,
Gwalior, and thereafter at Rainbow Hospital, Gwalior. The claimants
asserted that an amount exceeding Rs.7,00,000/- was incurred towards his
medical treatment, including surgeries for his head and leg injuries.
However, despite treatment, Lalaram succumbed to his injuries on
11.04.2024. His post-mortem examination was conducted at Bhander
Hospital, and Crime No.74/2024 was registered at Police Station Dursada,
District Datia, in connection with the accident. The claimants further pleaded
that deceased Lalaram was aged about 69 years and was engaged in
agriculture and the dairy business, earning approximately Rs.20,000/- to
Rs.25,000/- per month. He was the husband of appellant/claimant No. 1 and
the father of appellants/claimants Nos. 2 and 3, alleging that his death had
caused them financial loss and deprived them of his care, affection and
companionship, the claimants instituted Motor Accident Claim Case
No.110/2024 under Section 166 of the MV Act, seeking total compensation
of Rs.34,80,000/- from the respondents.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:25:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32677
4 MA-8484-2025
4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 denied the allegations of rash and

negligent driving and contended that the liability to pay compensation, if
any, rested with respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, as the offending
vehicle was insured on the date of the accident.
5. The Insurance Company, in turn, disputed the involvement of the
insured vehicle and alleged that the accident had occurred due to the
negligence of the motorcycle rider. It further contended that the claim
amount was highly exaggerated and prayed for dismissal of the claim
petition.
6. Upon considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by the
parties, the learned Claims Tribunal passed the impugned Award dated
11.04.2025, awarding compensation of Rs,5,58,020/- with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation
awarded, the appellants/claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking
enhancement thereof.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that although
the learned Claims Tribunal treated the deceased as an unskilled worker, it
assessed his monthly income at Rs.8,200/-, which is inconsistent with the
applicable guidelines of the Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority
(MPSLSA). It is contended that his monthly income ought to have been
assessed at Rs.9,825/- in accordance with the minimum wages applicable to
an unskilled worker on the relevant date of the accident, i.e., 22.03.2024. It is
further submitted that the medical bills and documents, marked as Exhibit P-
31 onwards, produced by the claimants before the learned Claims Tribunal,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:25:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32677
5 MA-8484-2025
have been erroneously discarded on the ground that they were not supported

by corresponding medical prescriptions and attendant records containing
particulars such as the ward number, bed number and the name of deceased
Lalaram. Learned counsel contends that the bills evidencing the purchase of
medicines were duly proved and that the prescriptions were also available on
record. Merely because certain prescriptions did not bear the doctor's
signature, the medical expenses incurred during the treatment of the deceased
could not have been rejected on that ground alone. Learned counsel for the
appellants places reliance upon the order passed by the Bombay High Court
in the case of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its
Manager vs. Ms. Charu Ashok Khandal and Others in First Appeal No. 154
of 2022, decided on 09.05.2025, to contend that rejection of medical bills on
the grounds stated by the learned Claims Tribunal amounts to a
hypertechnical approach. Accordingly, enhancement of compensation is
prayed for.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.
3/Insurance Company supports the impugned Award and submits that the
deceased was aged about 70 years at the time of the accident; therefore, the
monthly income of Rs.8,200/- assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal is just
and proper and does not warrant interference. It is further submitted that the
learned Claims Tribunal rightly rejected the medical bills and documents
produced by the claimants, as they were not duly supported by
corresponding prescriptions clearly establishing that the medicines had been
purchased for the treatment of deceased Lalaram. Accordingly, dismissal of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:25:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32677
6 MA-8484-2025
the appeal is prayed for.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The record indicates that for the purpose of assessing the notional
income of deceased, Lalaram Dangi, the Claims Tribunal treated him as an
unskilled worker and said finding has not been challenged by appellants.
However, while assessing his monthly income, the Claims Tribunal, relying
upon notification dated 07.12.2023, determined the same at Rs.8,200/-.
Learned counsel for the appellants contends that, in accordance with the
guidelines issued by the Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority
(MPSLSA), the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker on the
date of the accident, i.e., 22.03.2024, were Rs.9,825/- per month.
11. Upon consideration of aforesaid contention and material available
on record, this Court finds that the monthly income of deceased ought to
have been assessed at Rs.9,825/- instead of Rs.8,200/- for an unskilled
worker on the relevant date.
12. The next contention advanced on behalf of appellants is that
Claims Tribunal erred in disallowing the medical expenses claimed by them
despite the documentary evidence produced on record. It is submitted that the
documents exhibited as Exhibit P-31 onwards, pertaining to medical
expenses incurred during the treatment of deceased, were not properly
appreciated by Claims Tribunal. It is further contended that admission of
deceased to Rainbow Hospital on 26.03.2024 and the treatment administered
to him are borne out by documents available on record, including Exhibit P-
30 and Exhibit P-152. The discharge ticket of deceased is also on record as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:25:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32677
7 MA-8484-2025
Exhibit P-168, the finding of the Tribunal that discharge ticket of deceased

has not been exhibited is perverse.
13. This Court has carefully considered the documentary evidence
adduced by appellants before Claims Tribunal, including Ex.P/30, Ex. P/152,
Ex. P/168, the medical bills and the prescriptions placed on record.
14. A perusal of Ex.P/168 reveals that the said document is not the
discharge summary of deceased Lalaram Dangi from Rainbow Hospital, but
pertains to the discharge of injured Shivkumar from District Hospital, Datia.
Consequently, the Claims Tribunal was justified in observing that the
discharge summary of deceased Lalaram Dangi from Rainbow Hospital had
not been exhibited on record. Similarly, Ex.P/152, comprising the daily notes
maintained by doctor at Rainbow Hospital, is dated 10.04.2024. The said
document does not disclose the condition of deceased at the time of his
admission to the hospital; rather, it records that the patient was taken away
against medical advice. The medical bills produced by appellants, though
issued in the name of Lalaram Dangi by RMS Pharmacy, are not adequately
corroborated by contemporaneous medical records. The corresponding
prescriptions do not contain sufficient particulars, such as the name of
prescribing doctor and other relevant treatment details, to establish a clear
nexus between medicines purchased and treatment administered to deceased.
The bills marked as Exhibit P-31 to Exhibit P-45 and Exhibit P-73 to Ex.
P/98 also reflect the names of similar medicines. In the absence of adequate
supporting medical records, the actual expenditure claimed by appellants
towards the treatment of deceased cannot be said to have been satisfactorily
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:25:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32677
8 MA-8484-2025
established.

15. In view of the aforesaid deficiencies in the documentary evidence,
this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the findings recorded
by Claims Tribunal insofar as evidentiary value of medical bills and
prescriptions is concerned. The rejection of medical expenses claimed on the
basis of aforesaid documents, therefore, does not warrant interference.
16. Although the findings recorded by Claims Tribunal regarding the
insufficiency of the evidence produced in support of medical expenses do
not call for interference, this Court is of the considered opinion that, having
regard to the duration of deceased's treatment and the circumstances borne
out by the record, the amount of Rs.50,000/- already awarded by Claims
Tribunal under the head of medical expenses deserves to be enhanced by a
further lump-sum amount of Rs.50,000/-, in the interest of justice. The said
enhancement is being granted having regard to the circumstances of the case
and does not amount to acceptance of the medical bills that were found
insufficiently proved. Accordingly, the appellants shall be entitled to an
additional sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of medical expenses, over and
above the amount already awarded by Claims Tribunal under the said
head. While retaining the multiplier of 5 and the deduction of one-third
towards his personal and living expenses, as adopted by Claims Tribunal,
computation of compensation is accordingly made as follows:-
S. No. Head of Compensation Amount (Rs.)
1. Annual loss of dependency (Rs.9,825 − 1/3 × 12)78,600
2. Multiplier 5
3. Loss of dependency 3,93,000
4. Loss of estate 18,000
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:25:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32677
9 MA-8484-2025
5. Funeral expenses 18,000

6. Loss of consortium 48,000x3 1,44,000
7. Medical expenses (already awarded) 50,000
8. Additional lump-sum medical expenses 50,000
9. Total Compensation 6,73,000
10. Less: Compensation already awarded 5,58,020
11. Enhanced Compensation 1,14,980
17. Consequently, the total compensation payable to the appellants
works out to Rs. 6,73,000/- as against Rs.5,58,020/- awarded by Claims
Tribunal. The appellants are, therefore, entitled to an enhanced compensation
of Rs.1,14,980/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest
at the rate of 6% per annum, in accordance with the rate fixed by Claims
Tribunal, from the date of filing of claim petition until its realization, subject
to adjustment of any amount already paid or deposited by respondents. The
remaining findings and directions contained in the impugned award shall
remain undisturbed.
18. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award
dated 11.04.2025, passed by Claims Tribunal stands modified to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
19. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
AK/-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:25:02