Arun Tiwari vs Lokesh Singh Rajpoot

Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:81673
1 MA-4998-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
th
ON THE 12 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 4998 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC010407402025
ARUN TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
LOKESH SINGH RAJPOOT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain - Advocate through Video Conferencing
alongwith Shri Bhanu Prakash Vishwakarma - Advocate for the
respondent No.3/Insurance company.
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimants, being
aggrieved of the award dated 22.03.2025 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Harda, District Harda, in MACC No. 101 of
2024, on two grounds. Firstly, the learned Claims Tribunal has
arbitrarily applied the multiplier on the basis of the age of the claimants
and not as the age of the deceased, without considering the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another, AIR 2009 SC 3104, thereby demonstrating a
lack of understanding of the principles governing the application of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 16-10-2026
12:48:29

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:81673
2 MA-4998-2025
multiplier with reference to the age of the deceased. This fact is not

disputed by Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company, appearing through video conferencing.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that, in
paragraph 25 of the impugned award, the learned Claims Tribunal has
demonstrated a complete non-application of mind to the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and
subsequently in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16
SCC 680. It is further submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has
arbitrarily computed the income for a period of five years and divided it
by half on the ground that the deceased was a bachelor, without
indicating the legal basis for adopting such a method of computation.
3. Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.
3/Insurance Company, fairly supports the aforesaid contentions.
4. In the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court
while referring to its earlier judgment in the case of General Manager,
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas 1994
(2) SCC 176, has referred to para 10 and 13, it is noted as under:
"10. The manner of arriving at the damages is to
ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the
support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct
therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was
accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 16-10-2026
12:48:29

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:81673
3 MA-4998-2025
maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net

income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit
of the dependants. Then that should be capitalized by
multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of
year’s purchase.”
"13. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment
of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to
the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand
by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is
determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants
whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital
sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable
economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual
interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the
fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-
up over the period for which the dependency is expected to
last.”
5. Thus, it is evident that Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the
view that to arrive at the damages net income of the deceased available
for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom
such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon
himself, is to be taken into consideration and then that should be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 16-10-2026
12:48:29

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:81673
4 MA-4998-2025
capitalized by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number

of year’s purchase.
6. In para-13 in the case of General manager Vs. Susamma
Thomas (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the aspect of
ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having
regard to the circumstances of the case and thereafter, it also dealt with
the aspect of addition of future prospects etc. and developed the table for
applying appropriate multiplier as per the age of the deceased.
7. In fact, in the case of UP State Road Transport Corporation
Vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors 1996 (4) SCC 362, in para 17 it is clearly
noted that "According to this table the multiplier varies from 5 to 18
depending on the age group to which the victim belonged".
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
st
25590 of 2024] decided on October 31 2017 in para 59.7 held that 'the
age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier."
Thus, it is evident that on the date of passing of the award i.e. on
22.03.2025 both the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court were
available to the learned Claims Tribunal but learned Claims Tribunal did
not deem it proper to read the same and apply its ratio.
9. Thus, there is a gross illegality committed to the claimant and
also to the cause of justice by mentioning the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) but not applying the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 16-10-2026
12:48:29

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:81673
5 MA-4998-2025
same.

10. As far as, income criteria is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) has discussed this aspect in
para 43 while answering the Question (iv) dealing with Computation of
Compensation and has noted as under :
"43. In this case as noticed above the salary of the
deceased at the time of death was Rs.4,004. By applying the
principles enunciated by this Court to the evidence, the High
Court concluded that the salary would have at least doubled
(Rs.8008) by the time of his retirement and consequently,
determined the monthly income as an average of Rs.4004 and
Rs.8008 that is Rs.6006 per month or Rs.72,072 per annum.
We find that the said conclusion is in conformity with the
legal principle that about 50% can be added to the actual
salary, by taking note of future prospects.
44. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that
when actual figures as to what would be the income in future,
are available it is not proper to take a nominal hypothetical
increase of only 50% for calculating the income. He submitted
that though the deceased was receiving Rs.4004/- per month at
the time of death, as per the certificates issued by the
employer (produced before High Court), on the basis of pay
revisions and increases, his salary would have been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 16-10-2026
12:48:29

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:81673
6 MA-4998-2025
Rs.32,678/- in the year 2005 and there is no reason why the

said amount should not be considered as the income at the
time of retirement. It was contended that the income which is
to form the basis for calculation should not therefore be the
average of Rs.4004/- and Rs.8008/-, but the average of
Rs.4004/- and Rs.32,678/-.
45. The assumption of the appellants that the actual
future pay revisions should be taken into account for the
purpose of calculating the income is not sound. As against the
contention of the appellants that if the deceased had been
alive, he would have earned the benefit of revised pay scales,
it is equally possible that if he had not died in the accident, he
might have died on account of ill health or other accident, or
lost the employment or met some other calamity or
disadvantage. The imponderables in life are too many.
Another significant aspect is the non-existence of such
evidence at the time of accident.
49. As an earning member, the deceased would have
spent more on himself than the other members of the family
apart from the fact that he would have incurred expenditure on
travelling/transportation and other needs. Therefore we are of
the view that interest of justice would be met if one-fifth is
deducted as the personal and living expenses of the deceased.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 16-10-2026
12:48:29

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:81673
7 MA-4998-2025
After such deduction, the contribution to the family

(dependants) is determined as Rs.57,658/- per annum. The
multiplier will be 15 having regard to the age of the deceased
at the time of death (38 years). Therefore the total loss of
dependency would be Rs.57,658 x 15 = Rs.8,64,870/-."
11. It is evident that Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the
principal on which income of a deceased is to be computed and how
much is to be deducted towards the living expenses of the deceased
depending on the number of the dependents but this aspect too has not
been taken into consideration and arbitrarily calculations have been
made.
12. Therefore, the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is
modified in the following terms:
13. The date of the accident is 01.04.2024. On the date of the
accident, the deceased, whose date of birth was 12.04.1983, had not
completed 41 years of age. Taking the salary of the deceased, who was
working as a Home Guard, at Rs. 29,250/- per month, 30% is to be
added towards future prospects. Thus, the annual income, inclusive of
future prospects, comes to Rs. 4,56,300/-. Since the deceased was a
bachelor, 50% is to be deducted towards his personal and living
expenses. Applying a multiplier of 15, the total pecuniary compensation
comes to Rs. 34,22,250/-, as against Rs. 11,40,750/- awarded by the
Claims Tribunal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 16-10-2026
12:48:29

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:81673
8 MA-4998-2025
14. Thus, the claimants are entitled to an enhancement of Rs.

22,81,500/- (Rupees Twenty-Two Lakhs Eighty-One Thousand Five
Hundred only), in addition to the amount awarded by the learned Claims
Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until the date of actual
payment. The other terms and conditions of the award shall remain
intact.
15. It is directed that, since the claimants have lost their young
son, the enhanced amount shall be invested in a monthly income scheme
of an Indian Post Office or a nationalised bank in the joint names of the
claimants for a period of seven years. The claimants shall be entitled to
utilise the monthly interest accrued on the investment for their well-
being and sustenance. Upon completion of seven years, the claimants
shall be entitled to withdraw the entire amount invested.
16. In the above terms, this Miscellaneous Appeal stands
disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
AR

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 16-10-2026
12:48:29