Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sharda Devi vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ... on 23 September, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:42582]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 513/2023
1. Sharda Devi W/o Kishana Ram @ Hathiram, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Dukiyo Ke Dhani, Khariya Khangar, Tehsil
Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur, Presently Resident Of
Gothan, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur. (Raj.)
2. Mamta D/o Kishana Ram @ Hathiram, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Dukiyo Ke Dhani, Khariya Khangar, Tehsil
Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur, Presently Resident Of
Gothan, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur. (Raj.)
3. Monika Dukiya D/o Kishana Ram @ Hathiram, Aged About
18 Years, By Caste Rawat, R/o Dukiyo Ke Dhani, Khariya
Khangar, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur, Presently
Resident Of Gothan, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur. (Raj.)
4. Manisha D/o Kishana Ram, Aged About 14 Years, Minor
Are Being Represented By Their Natural Guardian And
Next Friend Mother Sharda Devi, By Caste Rawat, R/o
Dukiyo Ke Dhani, Khariya Khangar, Tehsil Bhopalgarh,
District Jodhpur, Presently Resident Of Gothan, Tehsil
Merta, District Nagaur. (Raj.)
5. Kritika D/o Kishana Ram @ Hathiram, Aged About 12
Years, Minor Are Being Represented By Their Natural
Guardian And Next Friend Mother Sharda Devi, By Caste
Rawat, R/o Dukiyo Ke Dhani, Khariya Khangar, Tehsil
Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur, Presently Resident Of
Gothan, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur. (Raj.)
6. Anshika Choudhary D/o Kishana Ram @ Hathiram, Aged
About 8 Years, Minor Are Being Represented By Their
Natural Guardian And Next Friend Mother Sharda Devi, By
Caste Rawat, R/o Dukiyo Ke Dhani, Khariya Khangar,
Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur, Presently Resident Of
Gothan, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur. (Raj.)
7. Mangi Lal S/o Bholaram, Aged About 66 Years, By Caste
Rawat, R/o Dukiyo Ke Dhani, Khariya Khangar, Tehsil
Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur, Presently Resident Of
Gothan, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur. (Raj.)
8. Rami W/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 63 Years, By Caste
Rawat, R/o Dukiyo Ke Dhani, Khariya Khangar, Tehsil
Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur, Presently Resident Of
Gothan, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur. (Raj.)
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:45:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 07:13:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42582] (2 of 9) [CMA-513/2023]
(Respondents No.4, 5 & 6 being minor are being
represented by their natural guardian & next friend
mother Sharda Devi.)
----Appellants
Versus
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager,
Branch Office Devipura, Jaipur Road, District Sikar (Raj.)
(Insurer)
2. Rajendra Prasad S/o Bhagirathmal Gurjar, Aged About 42
Years, Resident Of Bhodan, Police Station Sidhana,
District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (Driver)
3. Omprakash S/o Sardar Ram Gurjar, R/o Dhanijhodli Tan,
Bansdikhurd, Police Station Nimka Thana, District Sikar
(Raj.) (Owner Through Power Of Attorney)
4. Umraogurjar S/o Nathuramgurjar, R/o Mohalla Hiramal,
Sangalpura Tavran, Tehsil Shrimadhavpur, District Sikar
(Raj.) (Authorized / Registered Owner)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Falgun Buch with
Ms. Simran Mehta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Leela Dhar Khatri
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Judgment
23/09/2025
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-
claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount
awarded vide judgment and award dated 11.01.2022 passed by
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta in MAC Case No.59/2019.
2. The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment/award dated
11.01.2022 awarded a sum of Rs.21,04,720/- in favour of the
claimants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
filing of claim petition i.e. 05.07.2019.
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:45:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 07:13:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42582] (3 of 9) [CMA-513/2023]
3. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was preferred
by the claimants with the submission that on the fateful evening
of 23.05.2018, the deceased Kishanaram @ Hathiram, in the
company of his father Mangilal, was returning from Khariya
Khangar village towards their native abode, each astride his own
motorcycle. At approximately 9:20 p.m., when Kishanaram
(deceased) had reached the stretch of road near the village water
tank, a Swaraj make tractor with a trolley attached thereto, being
driven at an excessive speed and in a rash and grossly negligent
manner, came from the opposite direction and hit Kishanaram's
(deceased) motorcycle in a head-on collision. The impact proved
fatal, as Kishnaram sustained grievous injury upon his neck,
resulting in his instantaneous death at the very site of occurrence.
4. The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was insured
with respondent No.1 - Insurance Company.
5. The appellants-claimants are dependents of deceased
Kishnaram @Hathiram. The claimants claimed compensation to
the tune of Rs.2,10,19,000/-. However, the learned Tribunal after
framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on the
record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, while
assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.8,530/-,
awarded total compensation of Rs.21,04,720/- in favour of the
claimants-appellants, the break-up of which is as under:
1. Income per month (after Rs.9,554/-
addition of future prospects
(40%) and deductions for
personal and living expenses
(1/5) in the monthly income of
Rs.8,530)
2. Loss of Annual Income (as per Rs.9,554 x 12 x 15
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:45:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 07:13:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42582] (4 of 9) [CMA-513/2023]
the age of 37 years of the de- = Rs.17,19,720/-
ceased, multiplier of 15).
3. Under the head of 'consortium' Rs.3,52,000/-
4. Under the head of 'Funeral Rs.16,500/-
expenses'
5. Under the head of 'Loss of Rs.16,500/-
estate'
6. Total amount of compensation Rs.21,04,720/-
awarded by the Tribunal
6. Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-
claimants raised the following two grounds:
(i) The learned Tribunal committed a manifest error in failing to
take into consideration the income derived by the deceased from
his agricultural pursuits while assessing the loss of dependency.
The deceased, besides being a retired serviceman, was also
engaged in agricultural activities on the family land which
constituted a substantial and regular source of income. By failing
to consider this aspect, the Tribunal grossly underestimated the
actual earning capacity of the deceased. In support of his
submission, counsel relied upon the Allahabad High Court
judgment in Shrikrishna Vs. Surendra Singh & Ors., First
Appeal From Order No. 83 of 2012 (decided on 25.03.2014).
(ii) The learned Tribunal further erred in computing the future
prospects of the deceased at the rate of 40% whereas, in view of
the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.,
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:45:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 07:13:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42582] (5 of 9) [CMA-513/2023]
(2009) 6 SCC 121, the same ought to have been computed at
50%.
8. Per contra learned counsel for respondent Insurance
Company submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly considered
the income of deceased as Rs.8,530/- per month. He emphasized
that not an iota of documentary evidence was placed before the
Tribunal to demonstrate or substantiate the assertion of
agricultural income, and in the absence of such proof, the Tribunal
had no option but to rely solely upon the pension certificate as
placed on record.
9. Counsel further submits that the addition of 40% towards
future prospects was made strictly in conformity with the age
bracket and the income of the deceased as per binding judicial
precedents, and hence the award impugned cannot be said to be
suffering from any infirmity.
10. Heard the counsels. Perused the record.
11. Before adverting to the specific grounds urged, it is apposite
to recall that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being a piece of
beneficial legislation, casts upon the Court the solemn duty of
ensuring that the compensation awarded is just, fair and
reasonable, neither fanciful nor illusory. The purpose of such
adjudication is not merely to recompense pecuniary loss but to
provide succor to the dependents of the deceased who are
suddenly deprived of their breadwinner. In this background, the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties are to be
evaluated not in a hyper-technical manner, but in the spirit of
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:45:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 07:13:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42582] (6 of 9) [CMA-513/2023]
equity, reasonableness and the binding principles enunciated by
the Hon'ble Apex Court.
12. Coming on to the first ground pertaining to the exclusion of
agricultural income, this Court finds it pertinent to note that AW-1
Smt. Sharda Devi, in her cross-examination admitted that no
documentary evidence had been produced in support of the plea
that the deceased was cultivating land and deriving regular
income therefrom. Nonetheless, the factual matrix of the case
reveals that the deceased was only 37 years old at the time of
accident and had prematurely retired from the Indian Army. It
would be far too naive and unrealistic to assume that a man of
such young age, saddled with the responsibility of maintaining a
family of eight dependents, would have been content to live
exclusively upon the limited pensionary emoluments received after
retirement.
13. Indeed, it is a matter of common knowledge that individuals
in rural India, particularly those with access to ancestral or family-
owned land, often supplement their pension or salaried income
with agricultural pursuits. This assumption finds judicial
endorsement in the pronouncement of Allahabad High Court in
Shrikrishna (supra), wherein it was observed and held as under:
"19. In view of the above, if the victim is an agriculturist or a
farmer in the absence of any cogent proof of his income, his
notional income must be held to be Rs.4,000/- per month i.e.
Rs.48,000/- per annum for the purpose of calculating the
compensation."
14. In view of the above guiding principle and taking into
consideration the age of the deceased, his background and
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:45:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 07:13:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42582] (7 of 9) [CMA-513/2023]
obligations, specially of 5 daughters and 3 of them being minor
yet, this Court finds it just and proper to draw a reasonable
inference that he was supplementing his pension through
agricultural labour. The said inference is drawn by this Court also
for the reason that the averment of the deceased being engaged
in agricultural activities has not been controverted by the
respondents. Accordingly, and in consonance with the minimum
wages prescribed for the year 2018 for an unskilled labourer, i.e.,
Rs.213/- per day, this Court deems it appropriate to add a
notional sum of Rs.5,538/- per month to the income of the
deceased for the purpose of computing loss of dependency. The
award impugned thus requires modification to that limited extent.
15. Coming on to the second ground regarding the computation
of future prospects, the principle of awarding future prospects is
not a matter of benevolence but a settled legal mandate, designed
to reflect the real potentiality of income that the deceased would
have contributed to the family, had his life not been abruptly
curtailed. The Court, therefore, is obliged to scrutinise whether the
Tribunal has correctly applied the settled parameters in this
regard.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra)
has laid down a clear and binding framework for assessing future
prospects, holding that for a deceased aged below 40 years, the
enhancement must be made at 50% of the established income.
Since the deceased herein was 37 years of age, the enhancement
qua future prospects ought to be at the rate of 50%. To hold
otherwise would amount to denying the dependents of the
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:45:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 07:13:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42582] (8 of 9) [CMA-513/2023]
deceased the rightful measure of compensation to which they are
entitled under law.
17. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed.
Impugned judgment/award dated 11.01.2022 passed by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta in MAC Case No.59/2019 is
modified to the extent that the appellants-claimants shall be
entitled to the following compensation:
1. Income per month (after addition of Rs.16,882/-
future prospects (50%) and deduc-
tions for personal and living ex-
penses (1/5) in the monthly income
of Rs.14,068 (Rs.8,530+Rs.5538))
2. Loss of Annual Income (as per the Rs.16,882 x 12 x 15
age of 37 years of the deceased, = Rs.30,38,760/-
multiplier of 15)
3. Under the head of 'consortium' Rs.40,000 x 8 =
Rs.3,20,000/-
4. Under the head of 'Funeral expenses' Rs.15,000/-
5. Under the head of 'Loss of Estate' Rs.15,000/-
6. Total amount of compensation Rs.33,88,760/-
7. Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs.21,04,720/-
8. Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 33,88,760/-
- Rs.21,04,720/-
--------------------
Rs. 12,84,040/-
18. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment is made. The respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount (if not deposited yet) and the enhanced amount of compensation with the Tribunal within a period of two months (Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:45:43 PM) (Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 07:13:31 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:42582] (9 of 9) [CMA-513/2023] from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. Upon deposition, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the claimants in terms of the award.
19. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J 278-Devanshi/-
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:45:43 PM) (Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 07:13:31 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)