Smt.Girija And Ors vs Ramlakhan Singh And Anr. ... on 12 August, 2025

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt.Girija And Ors vs Ramlakhan Singh And Anr. ... on 12 August, 2025

1. These instant misc. appeals have been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 ('Act') assailing the validity of the judgment and award dated 02.12.2006 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand ('Tribunal') thereby seeking enhancement (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:17:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:36109] (4 of 19) [CMA-835/2007] and modification of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. These batch of claim petitions were decided by the learned Tribunal by way of a common award dated 02.12.2006, whereby multiple claim petitions, arising from the same motor vehicular accident dated 02.04.2004, were consolidated and adjudicated together.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 02.04.2004, at about 07:00 A.M., near Maukhampura within the jurisdiction of Police Station Dudu, District Jaipur, a Qualis vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-06-C-7727 was proceeding from Rajnagar carrying the dead body of an acquaintance of the occupants in the said vehicle. The said vehicle was occupied inter alia by the deceased Munishwar Mishra (MAC Case No.188/04), Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay (MAC Case No.189/04), Smt. Malti Devi, wife of Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay (MAC Case No.190/04), Sharda, wife of Amol Singh (MAC Case No.229/04), Amol Singh (MAC Case No.230/04) and Siraj Khan (MAC Case No.214/04). It was alleged that at the above-mentioned time, a truck bearing registration No. RJ-05-G-0853 ('offending vehicle'), being driven by respondent No.1 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, while overtaking another vehicle, collided head-on with the said Qualis, resulting in grievous injuries to the aforesaid persons, who succumbed injuries. The accident was attributed solely to the negligence of the truck driver.

3. The legal representatives of the deceased persons filed separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of: ₹31,97,000/- in MAC Case No. 188/04; ₹21,29,000/- in MAC Case No. 189/04; ₹6,45,000/- (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:17:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:36109] (5 of 19) [CMA-835/2007] in MAC Case No. 190/04; ₹16,47,000/- in MAC Case No. 229/04; ₹28,47,000/- in MAC Case No. 230/04; and ₹37,51,000/- in MAC Case No. 214/04 before the learned Tribunal.

4. Despite service of notice, respondent No. 1, the driver of the truck, failed to appear and was proceeded ex parte by the learned Tribunal. Respondent No. 2 - the insurer of the offending truck - filed written statement denying the material averments of the claim petitions and raising statutory defences under the Act and the terms of the policy, inter alia, contending breach of policy conditions on account of absence of a valid and effective driving licence, non-possession of requisite permit and fitness certificate, non-intimation of the accident, and lack of necessary parties.

5. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal has framed the issues and partly allowed the claim petition and has awarded compensation to the tune of ₹5,45,400/- in MAC Case No. 188/04; ₹4,05,000/- in MAC Case No.189/04; ₹1,89,000/- in MAC Case No. 190/04; ₹1,77,000/- in MAC Case No. 229/04; ₹6,69,000/- in MAC Case No. 230/04; and ₹2,37,400 in MAC Case No. 214/04 and being dissatisfied of the award, the claimants have preferred the claim petition.

Submissions in CMA Nos.835/2007 & 837/2007 arising out of Claim Petitions No.230/2004 and 229/2004:

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in calculating the compensation amount. He submits that deceased i.e., Amol Singh (MAC No.230/2004) at the time of his death was 47 years old and the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 10, which is inconsistent with the age of the deceased at the time (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:17:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:36109] (6 of 19) [CMA-835/2007] of the accident, and the same ought to have been 13. Further, the salary drawn by the deceased at the time of his death was Rs.10,168/- which was substantiated and proved by exhibiting Exhibit-21. While placing reliance on Exhibit-21, learned counsel argued that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in considering Rs.7,960/- as the monthly income of the deceased as the respondent Insurance Company has not disputed the said Ex-21. He also submits that the learned Tribunal has also erred in not awarding compensation towards future prospects considering the age of deceased Amol Singh, as 47 years and only 1/4 th ought to be deducted towards personal expenditure as there are four dependents. In this way, he asserts that the learned Tribunal made calculations contrary to the directions issued by the Apex Court. The multiplier ought to be applied according to the age. Hence, the learned counsel concluded stating that the award is liable to be enhanced suitably.

7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the compensation awarded in MAC No.229/2004 on account of death of deceased, Sharda, by the learned Tribunal, Rajsamand, is manifestly inadequate and unjust. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased Sharda, although was homemaker, however, she was giving tuition to the students and was earning Rs.5000/- per month, however, the learned Tribunal without there being any contrary evidence, has erred in concluding that deceased Sharda was earning Rs.1500/- per month. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 10 in CMA No. 835/2007 and 12 in CMA No.837/2007, which are inconsistent with the age of the (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:17:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:36109] (7 of 19) [CMA-835/2007] deceased, who were 47 and 38 years old respectively at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the Tribunal failed to consider the deceased's future prospects taking into consideration the age as 47 and 38 years respectively as 25% and 40%, which should have been accounted for to reflect the potential for increased earnings. The amounts awarded for consortium is Rs.30,000/- and funeral expenses Rs.3,000/- are disproportionately low and do not adequately compensate for the emotional and social impact of the loss. He also submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd amount from the Personal Expenses, which ought to have been 1/4th as the dependents of the deceased are four in numbers including three sons and father as per the guidelines laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. : (2017)16 SCC 680.

Submissions in CMA Nos.1257/2007 arising out of Claim Petition No.188/2004:

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants in CMA No.1257/2007 submits that the monthly income of the deceased has been wrongly assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs.6,255/-. While relying on Exhibit-1, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was a Government employee and as per the Salary Certificate (Exhibit-1) issued by his employer i.e. Superintendent of Police, District Rajsamand, his monthly income was reflected as Rs.10,415/-, which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. He further submits that the deceased was 51 years of age at the time of accident and, therefore, the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal of 10 is not correct and the same ought to have been 11. (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:17:05 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:36109] (8 of 19) [CMA-835/2007] He further submits that the learned Tribunal has not granted future prospects, which looking to the age of deceased ought to be 15%, which should have been accounted for to reflect the potential for increased earnings. The amounts awarded for consortium and funeral expenses are disproportionately low and do not adequately compensate for the emotional and social impact of the loss. He also submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd amount from the Personal Expenses, which ought to have been 1/4th as the dependents of the deceased are four in numbers including three sons and father as per the guidelines laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

Submissions in CMA Nos.1258/2007 & 1259/2007 arising out of Claim Petition No.190/2004 and 189/2004:

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants/claimants in CMA 1258/2007 and CMA 1259/2007 submits that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in calculating the compensation amount. He submits that deceased i.e., Rakesh Kumar (MAC No.189/2004) at the time of his death was 46 years old and the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 10, instead of 13. Further, the salary drawn by the deceased at the time of his death was Rs.5500/- which was substantiated by exhibiting Exhibit-16. While placing reliance on Exhibit-16, the learned counsel argued that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in considering Rs.4500/- only as the monthly income of the deceased, though Exhibit-16 was not disputed by the respondent Insurance Company and thus prayed that the award passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be modified. In this way, he asserts that the learned Tribunal made calculations contrary to the (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:17:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:36109] (9 of 19) [CMA-835/2007] directions issued by the Apex Court. The multiplier ought to be applied according to the age. He also submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding 25% towards future prospects considering the age of the deceased and accordingly adequate compensation towards consortium. Hence, the learned counsel concluded stating that the award is liable to be enhanced suitably.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants further submits that the compensation awarded in MAC No.190/2004 on account of death of deceased, Smt. Malti Devi, by the learned Tribunal is manifestly inadequate and unjust. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 12 instead of 15 in MAC No.190/2004, which is inconsistent with the age of deceased Smt. Malti Devi, who was 38 years old at the time of the accident. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that deceased Smt. Malti Devi, was doing the work of stitching and thus she was a skilled labrouer, however, the learned Tribunal has considered her monthly income at Rs.1500/- without there being any basis. He further submits that deceased Malti Devi was a skilled labourer and in the year 2004, the wages for skilled person was Rs.1768/- and, therefore, the compensation ought to have been calculated while considering the monthly income of deceased Malti Devi at Rs.1768/-. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal failed to consider the deceased's future prospects, which looking to the age of the deceased ought to have been 40%. The amounts awarded for consortium and funeral expenses are disproportionately low and do not adequately compensate for the emotional and social impact of the loss. He also submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:17:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:36109] (10 of 19) [CMA-835/2007] deducting 1/3rd amount from the Personal Expenses, which ought to have been 1/4th as the dependents of the deceased are four in numbers including three sons and father as per the guidelines laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

Submissions in CMA Nos.748/2009 arising out of Claim Petition No.214/2004:

10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants in CMA No.748/2009 submits that the monthly income of the deceased- Siraj Khan has been assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs.5000/- while relying on Exhibit-25, however, the learned Tribunal has erred in deducted 2/3rd instead of 1/2 towards personal expenses as the deceased was an unmarried boy. He further submits that the deceased was 24 years of age at the time of accident and, therefore, the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal of 11 is not correct and the same ought to have been 18.

He further submits that the Tribunal has not granted future prospects, which looking to the age of deceased ought to be 40%, which should have been accounted for to reflect the potential for increased earnings. The amounts awarded for consortium and funeral expenses are disproportionately low and do not adequately compensate for the emotional and social impact of the loss.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that in so far as the calculation of multiplier in the aforesaid misc. appeals is concerned, the learned Tribunal has erred in applying the settled principles of law and submitted that the court should be guided by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divya v. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. : [2022 INSC 1108]; and Pranay Sethi (supra). The structured formula (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:17:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:36109] (11 of 19) [CMA-835/2007] approach is applicable, involving the assessment of annual income, addition of future prospects, deduction for personal expenses, and application of appropriate multiplier based on the age of the deceased.

12. On the other hand, the submission made by the learned counsel for the Respondent is that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and does not warrant any interference. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier(s) in line with the age of the deceased and has followed the established guidelines. The Respondent contends that the Tribunal has properly considered the evidence on record, and no grounds have been shown for interference with the award. The Respondent further argues that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is appropriate and consistent with the established principles governing such cases.

13. Heard, the counsel for the Appellants as well as the counsel for the Respondents and perused the material available on record.

14. In the present case, the main issue that arises for adjudication is whether the learned Tribunal had correctly assessed the compensation due to the claimants under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in light of the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Upon meticulous examination of the records, as well as the arguments raised by both the appellants and respondents, this Court, with respect to the impugned award passed, finds that certain errors were made in the award of compensation, which warrant modification and enhancement in line with the established principles governing such claims.

(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:17:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:36109] (12 of 19) [CMA-835/2007]

15. In relation to the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal, it is apparent that the learned Tribunal applied an inconsistent multiplier to the cases based on the age of the deceased. The application of multipliers, as per the principles laid down in the landmark decisions of Pranay Sethi and Divya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., requires careful consideration of the age of the deceased and the respective family dependents. The Tribunal's reliance on a multiplier of 12 in CMA No.837/2007 (age of deceased: 38 years) and 10 in CMA No.835/2007 (age of deceased: 47 years) fails to align with the formula prescribed in Pranay Sethi, where the multiplier should reflect the age of the deceased and be consistent with judicial guidelines. A higher multiplier is warranted for the younger deceased, and the same shall be adjusted accordingly in this case. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased Amol as Rs.7,960/- and, therefore, the monthly income of the deceased Amol deserves to be considered as per Ex-21 (Salary Certificate) at Rs.10,168/- per month.

16. This Court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 166 has made the following pertinent observation with respect to the calculation of just compensation in case of death of a homemaker:

"41. Therefore, on the basis of the above, certain general observations can be made regarding the issue of calculation of notional income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with respect to them, for the purposes of grant of compensation which can be summarised as follows:

41.1. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law.

41.2. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:17:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:36109] (13 of 19) [CMA-835/2007] women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes are cognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all.

41.3. Various methods can be employed by the court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

41.4. The court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally."

17. This court, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, deems it appropriate to take the notional income of deceased, Sharda, as Rs.3000/- per month. Further, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh and ors. vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and ors., (2020) 7 SCC 256 and looking to the age of the deceased 38 years, this court finds that future prospect @ 40% should be awarded as per the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and also the applicable multiplier would be of 15. Further, this Court is of the view that since there are three dependents of deceased- Sharda, therefore, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased ought to be made in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors., [(2009) 6 SCC 121].

18. Further, in terms of loss of income, the monthly income of the deceased was under-assessed by the learned Tribunal in various cases. For instance, in CMA No.1257/2007, the Tribunal erroneously calculated the monthly income of the deceased as (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:17:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:36109] (14 of 19) [CMA-835/2007] ₹6,255/-, while ignoring the documentary evidence (Exhibit-1, the salary certificate duly issued by the employer of the deceased) demonstrating the correct income as ₹10,415/-, which remained uncontroverted by the respondents. Similar discrepancies were found in other appeals, where the Tribunal failed to take into account the correct income of the deceased, which affected the calculation of the loss of income.

19. So far as CMA No.1258/2007 is concerned, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the Exhibit.16, which reflected that the income of the deceased was Rs.5500/- per month, which remained uncontroverted by the counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company. Further, in CMA No.1259/2007, this Court finds that oral evidence was adduced that the deceased was doing the work of stitching, which remained uncontroverted and thus while considering the deceased to be a skilled person, the minimum wages i.e. Rs.1768/- of the prevailing year i.e. 2004, has to be considered as monthly income of the deceased.

20. This Court also finds that the learned Tribunal has failed to adequately account for future prospects in the case of the deceased's. Following the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), where future prospects are to be factored into the compensation based on the age and income of the deceased, the failure to do so in the current awards has led to a manifestly inadequate award of compensation. Therefore, this Court has factored in the necessary percentage increase for future prospects as per the age of the deceased, which in turn has contributed to the enhanced compensation.

(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:17:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:36109] (15 of 19) [CMA-835/2007]

21. The learned Tribunal's application of the dependency deduction was also incorrect. In cases where the deceased had multiple dependents, the Tribunal deducted 1/3 rd of the income towards personal expenses, which according to the guidelines set forth in Pranay Sethi should have been 1/4 th in cases with four or more dependents. The correct deduction for personal expenses has now been considered in the recalculation, leading to an increase in the final compensation amounts.

22. In light of the above findings, this Court deems fit to enhance the compensation in each of the appeals and the same are presented in a tabular form hereunder:

CMA No.835/2007 arising out of Claim Petition No. 230/2004 Particulars Amount Amount Awarded by Awarded/enhanced by Tribunal this Court Monthly Income of the Rs.7960/- Rs.10,168/- deceased Loss of Income:- Rs. 6,36,000/- (A) Rs.13,23,699/-

Rs.10,168/-    x     12   (per
annum) = Rs.1,22,016/-
Rs.1,22,016 - Rs.13,404/-=
Rs.1,08,612/-           (After
Statutory Tax)
Rs.1,08,612/- minus 1/4th
(deduction of dependency) =
Rs.81,459/- + 25% (future
prospects) = Rs.1,01,823/- x
13        (multiplier)      =
Rs.13,23,699/-
(Add) Consortium :-                        Rs. 30,000/-                 (B) Rs.1,93,600/-
Rs.48,400/-       x                 4
(dependents).
(Add)         Non-Pecuniary                  Rs. 3,000/-                 (C) Rs.36,300/-
Expenses/Damages (Funeral
Expenses    and   Loss   of
Estate):-
Rs.18,150/- x 2
TOTAL (A), (B) and (C)                    Rs.6,69,000/-               (D) Rs. 15,53,599/-
                                                    (E)
TOTAL (D) - (E)                                                            Rs. 8,84,599/-
AWARDED BY TRIBUNAL                     Rs. 6,69,000/-

                          (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:17:05 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:36109]                     (16 of 19)                         [CMA-835/2007]


ENHANCED AMOUNT (Rs. 15,53,599/- minus                                  Rs. 8,84,599/-
Rs.6,69,000/-)

CMA No.837/2007 in Claim Petition No. 229/2004 Particulars Amount Amount Awarded by Awarded/enhanced by Tribunal this Court Monthly Income of the Rs.1,500/- Rs.3,000/- deceased Loss of Income:- Rs. 1,44,000/- (A) Rs.5,04,000/- Rs.3000/- x 12 (per annum) = Rs.36,000/-

Rs.36,000/-    minus  1/3rd
(deduction of dependency) =
Rs.24,000/- + 40% (future
prospects) = Rs.33,600/- x
15       (multiplier)     =
Rs.5,04,000/-
(Add) Consortium :-                       Rs. 30,000/-               (B) Rs.1,45,200/-
Rs.48,400/-       x                3
(dependents).
(Add)         Non-Pecuniary                 Rs. 3,000/-                (C) Rs.36,300/-
Expenses/Damages (Funeral
Expenses    and   Loss   of
Estate):-
Rs.18,150/- x 2
TOTAL (A), (B) and (C)                  Rs. 1,77,000/-               (D) Rs. 6,85,500/-
                                                   (E)
TOTAL (D) - (E)                                                         Rs. 5,08,500/-
AWARDED BY TRIBUNAL                    Rs. 1,77,000/-
ENHANCED AMOUNT (Rs. 6,85,500/- minus                                   Rs. 5,08,500/-
Rs. 1,77,000/-)

CMA No.1257/2007 arising out of Claim Petition No. 188/2004 Particulars Amount Amount Awarded by Awarded/enhanced by Tribunal this Court Monthly Income of the Rs.6,255/- Rs.10,415/- deceased Loss of Income:- Rs. 5,00,400/- (A) Rs.8,32,953/-

Rs.10,415/-    x  12    (per
annum) = Rs.1,24,980/-
Rs. 1,24,980 - Rs.13,996/-=
Rs.1,10,984/-         (After
Statutory Tax)
Rs.1,10,984/- minus 1/4th


                         (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:17:05 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:36109]                     (17 of 19)                          [CMA-835/2007]


(deduction of dependency) =
Rs.83,238/- + 15% (future
prospects) = Rs.95,723/- x
11       (multiplier)     =
Rs.8,32,953/-
(Add) Consortium :-                       Rs. 40,000/-                 (B) Rs.1,93,600/-
Rs.48,400/-       x                4
(dependents).
(Add)         Non-Pecuniary                 Rs. 5,000/-                 (C) Rs.36,300/-
Expenses/Damages (Funeral
Expenses    and   Loss   of
Estate):-
Rs.18,150/- x 2
TOTAL (A), (B) and (C)                  Rs. 5,45,400/-               (D) Rs. 10,62,853/-
                                                   (E)
TOTAL (D) - (E)                                                           Rs. 5,17,453/-
AWARDED BY TRIBUNAL                    Rs. 5,45,400/-
ENHANCED AMOUNT (Rs. 10,62,853/- minus                                    Rs. 5,17,453/-
Rs. 5,45,400/-)

CMA No.1258/2007 arising out of Claim Petition No.190/2004 Particulars Amount Amount Awarded by Awarded/enhanced by Tribunal this Court Monthly Income of the Rs. 4,500/- Rs. 5500/- deceased Loss of Income:- Rs. 3,60,000/- (A) Rs.8,04,375/- Rs. 55/- x 12 (per annum) = Rs.66,000/-

Rs.66,000/-    minus   1/4th
(deduction of dependency) =
Rs.49,500/- + 25% (future
prospects) = Rs.61875/- x
13        (multiplier)     =
Rs.8,04,375/-
(Add) Consortium :-                       Rs. 40,000/-                 (B) Rs.1,93,600/-
Rs.48,400/-       x                4
(dependents).
(Add)         Non-Pecuniary                 Rs. 5,000/-                 (C) Rs.36,300/-
Expenses/Damages (Funeral
Expenses    and   Loss   of
Estate):-
Rs.18,150/- x 2
TOTAL (A), (B) and (C)                  Rs. 4,05,000/-               (D) Rs.10,34,275/-
                                                   (E)
TOTAL (D) - (E)                                                           Rs.6,29,275/-
AWARDED BY TRIBUNAL                    Rs. 4,05,000/-
ENHANCED AMOUNT (Rs. 10,34,275/- minus                                    Rs.6,29,275/-
Rs.4,05,000/-)



                         (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:17:05 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:36109]                     (18 of 19)                         [CMA-835/2007]

CMA No.1259/2007 arising out of Claim Petition No.189/2004 Particulars Amount Amount Awarded by Awarded/enhanced by Tribunal this Court Monthly Income of the Rs. 1,500/- Rs.1768/- deceased Loss of Income:- Rs. 1,44,000/- (A) Rs.3,34,140/- Rs. 1768/- x 12 (per annum) = Rs.21,216/-

Rs.21,216/-    minus  1/4th
(deduction of dependency) =
Rs.15,912/- + 40% (future
prospects) = Rs.22,276/- x
15       (multiplier)     =
Rs.3,34,140/-
(Add) Consortium :-                       Rs. 40,000/-               (B) Rs.1,93,600 /-
Rs.48,400/-       x                4
(dependents).
(Add)         Non-Pecuniary                 Rs. 5,000/-                (C) Rs.36,300/-
Expenses/Damages (Funeral
Expenses    and   Loss   of
Estate):-
Rs.18,150/- x 2
TOTAL (A), (B) and (C)                 (E) Rs. 1,89,000/-            (D) Rs.5,64,500/-
TOTAL (D) - (E)                                                          Rs.3,75,500/-
AWARDED BY TRIBUNAL                    Rs.1,89,000/-
ENHANCED AMOUNT (Rs. 5,64,500/- minus                                    Rs.3,75,500/-
Rs. 1,89,000/-)

CMA No.748/2009 arising out of Claim Petition No. 214/2004 Particulars Amount Amount Awarded by Awarded/enhanced by Tribunal this Court Monthly Income of the Rs.5000/- Rs. 5000/- deceased Loss of Income:- Rs. 2,24,400/- (A) Rs.7,56,000/- Rs. 5000/- x 12 (per annum) = Rs.60,000/-

Rs.60,000/-    minus   1/2th
(deduction of dependency) =
Rs.30,000/- + 40% (future
prospects) = Rs.42,000/- x
18        (multiplier)     =
Rs.7,56,000/-

(Add) Consortium :-                       Rs. 10,000/-               (B) Rs.1,93,600/-
Rs.48,400/-       x                4
(dependents).


                         (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:17:05 PM)
                                    [2025:RJ-JD:36109]                       (19 of 19)                           [CMA-835/2007]


                                   (Add)         Non-Pecuniary                    Rs. 3,000/-               (C) Rs.36,300/-
                                   Expenses/Damages (Funeral
                                   Expenses    and   Loss   of
                                   Estate):-
                                   Rs.18,150/- x 2
                                   TOTAL (A), (B) and (C)                    Rs. 2,37,400/-               (D) Rs. 9,85,900/-
                                                                                        (E)
                                   TOTAL (D) - (E)                                                           Rs. 9,85,900/-
                                   AWARDED BY TRIBUNAL                     Rs. 2,37,400/-
                                   ENHANCED AMOUNT (Rs. 9,85,900/- minus                                      Rs.7,48,500/-
                                   Rs. 2,37,400/-)

                                   23.     Accordingly,       in    view     of    the     discussion       in    the     above

paragraphs, this court has modified the compensation in the instant misc. appeals. The misc. appeals are accordingly partly allowed and the Appellants are thus entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.8,84,599/- in CMA/835/2007; Rs.5,08,500/- in CMA/837/2007; Rs.5,17,453/- in CMA 1257/2007; Rs.6,29,275/- in CMA 1258/2007; Rs.3,75,500/- in CMA 1259/2007; Rs.7,48,500/- in CMA 748/2009. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum (as awarded by the learned Tribunal) from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of deposit. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the respondents/non-claimants jointly and severally with the Tribunal within a period of two months from today failing which, the interest shall stand enhanced @ 7.5% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. The amount of compensation, if any, disbursed in favour of the claimants, shall be adjusted accordingly. The judgment-cum-award dated 02.12.2006 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 90 to 95-DJ/ & Sumit/-

(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:17:06 PM)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur