Karuna Parmar vs Prakash Sinha

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C)No.6428/2023)

KARUNA PARMAR … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

PRAKASH SINHA & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C)No.6314/2023)

RAMCHAND SINGH PARMAR … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

PRAKASH SINHA & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

Signature Not Verified Time taken for disposal Digitally signed by NAVEEN D Date: 2025.10.16 Time taken for disposal Time taken for disposal of the claim petition by of the appeal by the of the appeal in this 16:51:47 IST Reason:

MACT High Court Court

1 5 years 1 month 1 year 10 months 1 year 10 months

Leave Granted

2. The present appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order dated

16th December 2022, passed in Misc.Appeal Nos.651 and 653 of 2021 by the

High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, which, in turn, was preferred

against the judgment and order dated 7th March, 2020 in M.A.C.C. No.500099,

500100 and 500098 of 2015 passed by the 16 th Additional Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur.

3. The brief facts giving rise to these Appeals are that on 7 th March, 2014 at

8.35 am, the Appellant in SLP(C)No.6428/2023, namely, Karuna Parmar

(hereinafter Appellant No.1), aged 41 years, along with her husband, namely,

Ramchand Singh Parmar – Appellant in SLP(C)No.6314/2023 (hereinafter

Appellant No.2), and their daughter namely Kumari Avika Parmar (deceased),

aged 6 years, were travelling on a motor vehicle when they were hit by the

offending Vehicle No. 07CO8 2794, a Tata 713 (Truck) driven by Prakash

Sinha, Respondent No.1 herein, in a rash and negligent manner. Both Appellant

Nos.1 and 2 suffered serious injuries, while their daughter died as a result of the

said motor vehicle accident. The Appellants were treated firstly at Jabalpur

Hospital and later on at Marble City Hospital.

4. The Claimant-Appellants filed three applications for compensation which

were decided collectively by the Tribunal. Appellant No. sought compensation

to the tune of Rs.56,90,000/-, submitting therein that at the time of the accident,

2 she was earning Rs.16,000/- per month while working as a Professor at Guru

Ram Das Khalsa Institute of Science and Technology, Jabalpur, and additionally

Rs.10,000/- per month while imparting tuition to children. As a result of the

accident, she is not in a position to undertake these jobs. Appellant No.2 sought

compensation for medical expenses; loss of income during treatment; and pain

and suffering to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. Lastly, they collectively sought

compensation to the tune of Rs.8,60,000/- on account of their deceased

daughter.

5. The Tribunal, vide its Order, awarded Appellant No.1 with a

compensation of Rs.3,84,792/- along with interest @ 7%, considering her

monthly income to be Rs.10,000/- per month through tuitions. The salary as a

professor was not considered since she had not been working for the last 2-3

years. Her disability was assessed as 5%. Appellant No.2 was awarded with

compensation of Rs.27,320/- for medical expenses. For the deceased daughter,

the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,30,000/- along with interest @ 7%, calculating her

prospective annual income to be Rs.21,000, i.e., Rs.1,750/- per month.

6. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, the Appellants

filed separate appeals before the High Court, submitting that the Tribunal has

incorrectly appreciated the following issues: a. Salary of Appellant No. 1 b. Disability suffered by Appellant No. 1

c. Medical Expenses incurred d. Compensation awarded for the deceased is on the lower side towards various heads.

7. The High Court, vide the impugned order, allowed the appeal of

Appellant No.1, awarding an extra amount of Rs.1,56,500/- by awarding future 3 prospects @ 30% and a further Rs.50,000/- under the head of future treatment,

as the injury suffered by her was serious in nature. The percentage of disability

remained the same. Additionally, Rs.75,000/- was awarded as a loss of income

for 6 months. The total compensation arrived at was Rs.5,40,792/-. The appeal

of Appellant No.2 came to be dismissed. Insofar as enhancement of

compensation towards the deceased child is concerned, in the impugned

judgment there is no discussion on the issue.

8. Dissatisfied, the Appellants are before us. The significant points of

challenge urged are:

a. The monthly income of Appellant No. 1 should be taken as Rs.26,000/- including an amount of Rs.16,000 which she earned as a professor.

b. Medical bills to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- requires consideration. c. Compensation awarded towards the deceased child is on the lower side.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. For the sake of clarity,

we examine the case of both the Appellants independently. Appellant No. 1

10. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on the salary

of Appellant No.1. It is borne from the record that she was working as a

professor till the year 2012 (two years prior to the accident) and drawing a

salary of Rs.16,000/- per month. It is true that at the time of the accident, she

was not holding such a position. However, it is imperative to note that the

accident took away such potential income of the Appellant. It is not a case

where the Appellant had left the field of education, as she was still imparting

4 tuition. In our view, it is necessary to include her income as a professor, since it

most accurately reflects her earning capacity at the time of the accident.

Therefore, it is proper to take the income of Appellant No.1 as Rs.26,000/- per

month.

11. The second issue requiring consideration is the amount towards medical

bills of the Appellants. We are not inclined to accept the Tribunal's reasoning

that the amount payable for medical expenses should be restricted to the bills

produced by the Appellant. This Court has clarified in the case of Kajal v.

Jagdish Chand1 that limiting the amount under this heading to the bills

presented would be unreasonable to the aggrieved party. It is a matter of record

that both the Appellants underwent extensive treatment, first at Jabalpur

Hospital and later at Marble City Hospital. The Courts below have awarded an

amount of Rs.2,04,792/-. In our view, in furtherance of the above exposition of

law, considering the medical condition of the Appellant, it is just and proper to

award Rs.5,00,000 towards this heading, as has been claimed by Appellant

No.1.

12. In view of the aforesaid, the compensation now payable to the Claimant-

Appellant would be recalculated as under:

FINAL COMPENSATION OF KARUNA PARMAR

Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with:

Monthly Income Rs.26,000/- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

Yearly Income 26,000 X 12 = Pranay Sethi Rs.3,12,000/- (2017) 16 SCC 680 Future Prospects 3,12,000 x 25% = Para 42 & 59 (25%) Rs.78,000

1 (2020) 4 SCC 413

5 Multiplier (14) 3,90,000 X 14 = Rs.54,60,000 Permanent Disability 14,04,000 x 5% = (5%) Rs.2,73,000/- Medical Expenses Rs.3,50,000/- Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413 Para 19 and 25

Special Diet & Rs.30,000/- Sidram v. Divisional Transportation Manager, United India Insurance Ltd. (2023) 3 SCC 439 Para 89

Pain and Suffering Rs.1,00,000/- K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 3385 Para 13 and 14

Loss of Income during 26000 x 6 = Rs.1,56,000/- Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar treatment (2011) 1 SCC 343 Para 6

TOTAL Rs. 9,09,000/-

Appellant No. 2

13. The compensation payable to Appellant No. 2, in accordance with the

law, is as follows:

FINAL COMPENSATION OF RAM CHAND PARMAR

Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with:

Medical Expenses Rs.8,320/- Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413 Para 19 and 25 Special Diet & Rs.30,000/- Sidram v. Divisional Manager, Transportation United India Insurance Ltd.

(2023) 3 SCC 439 Para 89 Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000/- K.S. Muralidhar v. R.

6 Subbulakshmi and Anr.

2024 SCC Online SC 3385 Para 13 and 14 Loss of Income during Rs.6,000/- Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar treatment (2011) 1 SCC 343 Para 6 TOTAL Rs.94,320/-

Deceased Child

14. Coming to the case of the deceased child, we are not inclined to accept

the reasoning of the Tribunal on the yearly income. Recently, in Baby Sakshi

Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another 2024 SCC Online SC 3692,

J. B.R. Gavai, writing for the bench, has elaborated that:

“29. This Court in the case of Kajal (supra) has held that taking notional income is not the correct approach. Instead, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in the concerned State has to be taken into consideration because, that would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. In this case, the minimum wage payable to a skilled workman in the State of Delhi at the time of the accident, i.e., 2nd June 2009, was Rs. 4,358/- per month.”

(Emphasis supplied)

15. For this purpose, we advert to the notification under the Minimum Wages

Act, 1948, for a skilled worker in 2014 wherein Rs. 223/- per day has been

fixed. The monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,690/-, and

consequently, the yearly income of the deceased has to be considered as

Rs.80,280/-. The compensation payable, therefore, is as follows:

FINAL COMPENSATION OF DECEASED AVIKA PARMAR Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with:

7

Monthly Income 223 X 30 = Rs.6,690/- Baby Sakshi Greola V. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 3692

Yearly Income 6,690 X 12 = Rs.80,280/-

Future 80,820 X 40% Prospects (40%) = Rs.1,12,392/-

Deduction (½ ) 1,12,392 / 2 National Insurance Co. Ltd. = Rs.56,196/- v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Multiplier (18) 56,196 X 18 = Rs.10,11,528 Para 42 & 59 Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- Loss of Funeral Rs.18,150/- Expenses Loss of consortium 48,400 X 2 = Rs.96,800/- TOTAL Rs. 11,44,628/-

Thus, the difference in compensation payable finally in the case of

Appellant No. 1 is as under:

MACT High Court This Court Rs.3,84,792/- Rs.5,41,292/- Rs.9,09,000/-

Thus, the difference in compensation payable finally in the case of

Appellant No. 2 is as under:

MACT High Court This Court Rs.27,320/- - Rs.94,320/-

8

Thus, the difference in compensation payable finally in the case relating

to the deceased child is as follows:

MACT High Court This Court

Rs.5,30,000/- Rs.5,30,000/- Rs.11,44,628/-

16. The Civil Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned

Award dated 7th March, 2020 in M.A.C.C. No.500099, 500100 and 500098 of

2015 passed by the 16th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur,

as modified vide the impugned order, stands further modified to the above

extent. Interest is to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………J. (SANJAY KAROL)

…………………....J. (MANMOHAN) February 11, 2025;

New Delhi.

9