Smt. Sonali wd/o Arjunsingh Gaharwar & Ors. vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.

Heard Shri P.R. Agrawal, learned Counsel for appellants and Shri V.H. Kedar, learned Counsel for respondent No.1.

In the present appeal, the original claimants approached before this Court with a grievance that the learned Tribunal did not grant just and fair compensation while deciding their claim petition. Therefore, by this appeal, seek enhancement in the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

In the present case, it is not disputed that the accident took place on 20.10.2010 at near Pimpri village on Dasur to Pimpri road at 10:00 a.m. The deceased, who was around 26 years of age at the time of accident, was working in a Krishi Kendra and also an agriculturist. According to the claimants, his monthly income was Rs.12,000/- per month. Therefore, they have filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal stating that they are entitled for a compensation of Rs.57,28,000/- but due to financial reasons, they have restricted their compensation only Rs.1,00,000/-before the Tribunal.

The respondent No.1- Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) appeared before the Claims Tribunal and opposed the claim application. According to them, the deceased was not earning Rs.12,000/- as stated by them in the application. It is also objected that he was working as an employee in a Krishi Kendra and was an agriculturist. According to them, the claimants are not entitled for the compensation as they have prayed in their application.

Before the Claims Tribunal, the present appellant No.1 has entered into the witness box and stated that the deceased was an agriculturist having income around Rs.12,000/-per month and also he was working at Krishi Kendra. The said witness was cross-examined by the respondent- MSRTC. No one entered into witness box on behalf of MSRTC before Tribunal.

In the light of the evidence which was brought before the Claims Tribunal, the learned Claims Tribunal by the impugned judgment has awarded the total compensation of Rs.4,57,000/- to the claimants by considering the monthly notional income of deceased of Rs.3,000/- by applying the minimum wages at the relevant time of the accident.

The appellants, who approached before this Court has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as the judgment of Coordinate Bench in First Appeal No.1003 of 2009, to buttress their submission that the notional income was not properly considered by learned Tribunal while determining the compensation in the matter.

The learned Counsel for the respondent- MSRTC, however, vehemently opposed the appeal. He has pointed out that before the Claims Tribunal, not a single document was produced by the appellants/claimants to point out that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. It is the submission of learned Counsel for the respondent that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the notional income of deceased at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month which was applicable at the relevant time of the accident. Therefore, in such circumstances, the appellants/claimants are not entitled for any enhancement in the compensation.

In light of the submission of both the parties, I have gone through the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jagdish Narayan vs. Karan Singh and ors. in Special Leave Petition (C) No.18945 of 2024 decided on 07.07.2026 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph No.4 as under:

From the findings recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it is held that while considering the notional income, the principle of increase of Rs.500/- per year in the income of a labourer is required to be considered and on that basis his notional income is to be drawn.

The appellants have pointed out from the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Seema Parveen Yusuf and another Vs. Santosh Ramnarayan Tiwari and others First in Appeal No.1003 of 2009, whereby this Court, considering the accident of year 2006, has considered the notional income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month and on that basis, awarded the compensation in the matter. It is stated that this judgment has attained the finality and same was not challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

In light of this judgment, the submission of the appellants is that as this Court has held in the year 2006, the monthly income at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month of a labourer, applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jagdish Narayan (surpa), Rs.500/- per year is added in the present case, his income would be Rs.8,000/- per month.

It is undisputed fact that the accident was occurred on 20.10.2010. This Court has considered the notional income in the year 2006 at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, by adding Rs.500/- per year in the year 2010, it would come Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, considering the judgment of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the notional income of the deceased is required to be considered as Rs.8,000/-per month in the present matter. Accordingly, by considering the notional income of deceased as Rs.8,000/-, his entitlement as per the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 would be as under:

In the light of above calculation, the judgment passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.17/2011 dated 11.11.2016 needs modification as under:

The First Appeal stands disposed of in above terms with no order as to the costs.