Kumari Phoolbano vs Lakhan Singh And Ors on 31 January, 2026

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Kumari Phoolbano vs Lakhan Singh And Ors on 31 January, 2026

[2026:RJ-JP:4001]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5344/2017

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having Its Regional Office,
Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney.
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Nazma Bano Widow Of Nanne Khan, R/o Behind
Jama Maszid, Ward No. 13, Nainwa, Distt. Bundi Raj.
2. Kumari Shahina D/o Nanne Khan, Minor Through Natural
Guardian And Mother Nazma Bano, R/o Behind Jama
Maszid, Ward No. 13, Nainwa, Distt. Bundi Raj.
3. Kalimuddin S/o Nanne Khan, Minor Through Natural
Guardian And Mother Nazma Bano, R/o Behind Jama
Maszid, Ward No. 13, Nainwa, Distt. Bundi Raj.
4. Moinuddin S/o Nanne Khan, Minor Through Natural
Guardian And Mother Nazma Bano, R/o Behind Jama
Maszid, Ward No. 13, Nainwa, Distt. Bundi Raj.
----Claimants/Respondents
5. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona Gurjar, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota,
Junction Kota Raj. Driver Of Vehicle
6. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota, Junction
Kota Raj. Owner Of Vehicle
7. Jahur Mohd. S/o Ali Mohammad, R/o Chhawani Kota Raj.
8. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Maansingh Chauhan, R/o Kota,
At Present Residing At Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Raj.
----Non-claimants/Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5259/2017
The New India Assurance Company Limited., Having Its Regional
Its Regional Office, Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its
Constituted Attorney
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Mohd. Hamid Ansari S/o Abdul Hafiz Ansari, R/o Pech Ki
Bawdi, Hindauli, Distt. Bundi Raj.
----Claimant/Respondent

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (2 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

2. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona Gurjar, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota,
Junction Kota Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle)
3. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota, Junction
Kota Raj. (Owner Of Vehicle)
4. Jahur Mohd. S/o Ali Mohammad, R/o Chhawani Kota Raj.
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Maansingh Chauhan, R/o Kota,
At Present Residing At Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Raj.
----Non-claimants/Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5260/2017
The New India Assurance Company Limited., Having Its Regional
Office, Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Kumari Phool Bano D/o Sanno Hafiz, Minor Through
Guardian Aunty Smt. Nazma Bano Wd/o Nanne Khan, R/o
Behind Jama Maszid, Ward No. 13, Nainwa, Distt. Bundi
Raj.
----Claimant/Respondent
2. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona Gurjar, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota,
Junction Kota Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle)
3. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota, Junction
Kota Raj. (Owner Of Vehicle)
4. Jahur Mohd. S/o Ali Mohammad, R/o Chhawani Kota Raj.
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Maansingh Chauhan, R/o Kota,
At Present Residing At Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Raj.
----Non-claimants/Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5261/2017
The New India Assurance Company Limited., Having Its Regional
Office, Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Kumari Phool Bano D/o Sanno Hafiz, Minor Through
Guardian Aunty Smt. Nazma Bano Widow of Nanne Khan,
R/o Behind Jama Maszid, Ward No. 13, Nainwa, Distt.
Bundi Raj.

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (3 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5262/2017

The New India Assurance Company Limited., Having Its Regional
Office, Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Mohd. Hamid Ansari S/o Abdul Hafiz Ansari, R/o Pech Ki
Bawdi, Hindauli, Distt. Bundi Raj.
----Claimant/Respondent
2. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona Gurjar, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota,
Junction Kota Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle)
3. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota, Junction
Kota Raj. (Owner Of Vehicle)
4. Jahur Mohd. S/o Ali Mohammad, R/o Chhawani Kota Raj.
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Maansingh Chauhan, R/o Kota,
At Present Residing At Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Raj.

----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5263/2017

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (4 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5264/2017

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Having Its Regional Office,
Nehru Palace Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney.
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Mohd. Hamid Ansari S/o Abdul Hafiz Ansari, R/o Pech Ki
Bawadi, Tehsil Hindauli, Distt. Bundy Raj.
----Claimant/Respondent
2. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona Gurjar, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota,
Junction Kota Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle)
3. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota, Junction
Kota Raj. (Owner Of Vehicle)
4. Jahur Mohd. S/o Ali Mohammad, R/o Chhawani Kota Raj.
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Maansingh Chauhan, R/o Kota,
At Present Residing At Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Raj.

----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5266/2017

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having Its Regional
Office, Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its
Constituted Attorney.
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Hasina Bano D/o Mohd. Ismail Ansari, R/o Dhakke
Ki Tapariya, Nayapura, Lakheri, Distt. Bundi Raj.
----Claimant/Respondent
2. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona Gurjar, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota
Junction Kota Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle)

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (5 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

3. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota, Junction
Kota Raj. (Owner Of Vehicle)
4. Jahur Mohd. S/o Ali Mohammad, R/o Chhawani Kota Raj.
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Maansingh Chauhan, R/o Kota,
At Present Residing At Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Raj.
----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5267/2017

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having Its Regional Office,
Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney.
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Kumari Phool Bano D/o Sanno Hafiz Minor Through
Guardian And Aunty Smt. Nazma Bano Widow Of Nanne,
R/o Behind Jama Maszid Ward No.13, Nainwa, Distt.
Bundi Raj.
----Claimant/Respondent
2. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona Gurjar, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota,
Junction Kota Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle)
3. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota, Junction
Kota Raj. (Owner Of Vehicle)
4. Jahur Mohd. S/o Ali Mohammad, R/o Chhawani Kota Raj.
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Maansingh Chauhan, R/o Kota
At Present Residing At Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Raj
----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5280/2017

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having Its Regional Office,
Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney.
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Mohd. Salim Ansari S/o Najar Mohd., R/o Gendoli Distt.
Bundi Raj.
----Claimant/Respondent
2. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona Gurjar, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota,
Junction Kota Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle)

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (6 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5281/2017

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having Its Regional Office,
Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney.
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Abdul Rahim Ansari S/o Mohd. Nafis,
2. Smt. Akhtar Bano W/o Abdul Rahim Ansari,
Both are R/o Dhakka Ki Tapariya, Nayapura, Lakheri Distt.
Bundi Raj.
----Claimants/Respondents
3. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona Gurjar, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota,
Junction Kota Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle)
4. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota, Junction
Kota Raj. (Owner Of Vehicle)
5. Jahur Mohd. S/o Ali Mohammad, R/o Chhawani Kota Raj.
6. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Maansingh Chauhan, R/o Kota,
At Present Residing At Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Raj.
----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5282/2017

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (7 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5283/2017
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having Its Regional Office,
Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney.
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Mohd. Saddik Ansari S/o Mohd. Nafis Ansari, R/o Village
And Post Lakheri, Dhakke Ki Tapri, Nayapura, Distt. Bundi
Raj.
----Claimant/Respondent
2. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona Gurjar, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota,
Junction Kota Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle)
3. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota, Junction
Kota Raj. (Owner Of Vehicle)
4. Jahur Mohd. S/o Ali Mohammad, R/o Chhawani Kota Raj.
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Maansingh Chauhan, R/o Kota,
At Present Residing At Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Raj.

----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5284/2017

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having Its Regional Office,
Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney.
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Phool Bano D/o Sanno Hafij Minor Through Guardian
Aunty Smt. Najama Bano W/o Nanne Khan, R/o Behind
Jama Maszid, Ward No. 13, Nainwa, Distt. Bundi Raj.
----Claimant/Respondent
2. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona Gurjar, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota
Junction Kota Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle)

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (8 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5285/2017

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having Its Regional Office,
Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney.
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Mohd. Saleem Ansari S/o Najar Mohammad, R/o Gendoli,
Distt. Bundi Raj.
2. Irfan S/o Mohd. Saleem, Minor Through Natural Guardian
And Father Shri Mohd. Saleem Amsari, R/o Gendoli, Distt.
Bundi Raj.
----Claimants/Respondents
3. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona Gurjar, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota,
Junction Kota Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle)
4. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota, Junction
Kota Raj. (Owner Of Vehicle)
5. Jahur Mohd. S/o Ali Mohammad, R/o Chhawani Kota Raj.
6. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Maansingh Chauhan, R/o Kota,
At Present Residing At Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Raj.

----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5286/2017
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having Its Regional Office,
Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney.
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Mohd. Saddik Ansari S/o Mohd. Nafis Ansari, R/o Village
And Post Lakheri, Dhakke Ki Tapri, Nayapura, Distt. Bundi
Raj.
----Claimant/Respondent

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (9 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

2. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona Gurjar, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota,
Junction Kota Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle)
3. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota, Junction
Kota Raj. (Owner Of Vehicle)
4. Jahur Mohd. S/o Ali Mohammad, R/o Chhawani Kota Raj.
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Maansingh Chauhan, R/o Kota,
At Present Residing At Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Raj.
----Non-claimants/Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5287/2017
The New India Assurance Company Limited., Having Its Regional
Office, Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Abdul Rahim Ansari S/o Mohd. Nafis,
2. Smt. Akhtar Bano W/o Abdul Rahim Ansari,
All are R/o Dhakka Ki Tapariya, Nayapura, Lakheri Distt.
Bundi Raj.
----Claimants/Respondents
3. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona Gurjar, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota,
Junction Kota Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle)
4. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota, Junction
Kota Raj. (Owner Of Vehicle)
5. Jahur Mohd. S/o Ali Mohammad, R/o Chhawani Kota Raj.
6. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Maansingh Chauhan, R/o Kota,
At Present Residing At Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Raj.
----Non-claimants/Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5288/2017
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having Its Regional Office,
Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney.
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Mohd. Salim Ansari S/o Najar Mohd., R/o Gendoli Distt.
Bundi Raj.
----Claimant/Respondent

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (10 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5289/2017

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having Its Regional Office,
Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney.
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Kumari Tanveer Fatma D/o Mohd. Sadiq Ansari, Minor
Through Natural Guarding And Father Mohd. Sadiq.
2. Mohd. Sadiq Ansari S/o Mohd. Nafis Ansari, R/o Village
And Post Lakheri Dhakke Ki Tapir, Nayapura, Distt. Bundi
Raj.
----Claimants/Respondents
3. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona Gurjar, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota,
Junction Kota Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle)
4. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction
Kota Raj. (Owner Of Vehicle)
5. Jahur Mohd. S/o Ali Mohammad, R/o Chhawani Kota Raj.
6. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Maansingh Chauhan, R/o Kota,
At Present Residing At Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Raj.
----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5334/2017
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having Its Regional Office,
Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Kumari Phool Bano D/o Sanno Hafiz, Through Natural
Guardian, And Grandmother Smt. Chandabi Widow Of
Madari Khan

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (11 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

2. Smt. Chandabi Widow Of Madari Khan, R/o Behind Jama
Masjid, Ward No. 13, Nainwa, Distt. Bundi Raj.
----Claimants/Respondents
3. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona Gurjar, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota,
Junction Kota Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle)
4. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota, Junction
Kota Raj. (Owner Of Vehicle)
5. Jahur Mohd. S/o Ali Mohammad, R/o Chhawani Kota Raj.
6. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Maansingh Chauhan, R/o Kota,
At Present Residing At Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Raj.
----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5335/2017

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having Its Regional Office,
Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney.
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Kumari Phool Bano D/o Sanno Hafiz, Minor Through
Guardian Aunty Smt. Nazma Bano Widow Of Nanne Khan,
R/o Behind Jama Maszid, Ward No. 13, Nainwa, Distt.
Bundi Raj.
----Claimant/Respondent
2. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona Gurjar, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota,
Junction Kota Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle)
3. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota, Junction
Kota Raj. (Owner Of Vehicle)
4. Jahur Mohd. S/o Ali Mohammad, R/o Chhawani Kota Raj.
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Maansingh Chauhan, R/o Kota,
At Present Residing At Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Raj.
----Non-claimants/Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5336/2017
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having Its Regional Office,
Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney.
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (12 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

1. Mohd. Salim Ansari S/o Najar Mohd., R/o Gendolu Tehsil
And Distt. Bundi Raj.
----Claimant/Respondent
2. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona Gurjar, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota,
Junction Kota Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle)
3. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota, Junction
Kota Raj. (Owner Of Vehicle)
4. Jahur Mohd. S/o Ali Mohammad, R/o Chhawani Kota Raj.
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Maansingh Chauhan, R/o Kota,
At Present Residing At Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Raj.

----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5337/2017
The New India Assurance Company Limited., Having Its Regional
Office, Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Constituted
Attorney
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Mohd. Saleem Ansari S/o Najar Mohammad, R/o Gendoli,
Distt. Bundi Raj.
----Claimant/Respondent
2. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona Gurjar, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota,
Junction Kota Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle)
3. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota, Junction
Kota Raj. (Owner Of Vehicle)
4. Jahur Mohd. S/o Ali Mohammad, R/o Chhawani Kota Raj.
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Maansingh Chauhan, R/o Kota,
At Present Residing At Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Raj.
----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5338/2017
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having Its Regional Office,
Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Through Its Constituted
Attorney.
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Mohd. Nafis Ansari @ Lakhpati S/o Mohd. Ismail, R/o
Dhakke Ki Tapri, Nayapura, Village And Post Lakheri,
Distt. Bundi Raj.

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (13 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

----Claimant/Respondent
2. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona Gurjar, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota,
Junction Kota Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle)
3. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota, Junction
Kota Raj. (Owner Of Vehicle)
4. Jahur Mohd. S/o Ali Mohammad, R/o Chhawani Kota Raj.
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Maansingh Chauhan, R/o Kota
At Present Residing At Shanti Nagar Jaipur Raj.
----Non-claimants/Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 95/2018
Kumari Phoolbano D/o Sanno Hafiz, aged 22 years, R/o Behind
Jama Majid Ward No. 13 Nenwa District Bundi Rajasthan
-----Claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction,
Kota, Junction, Kota. (Driver Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-
2274)
2. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction,
Kota, Junction, Kota. (Owner Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-
2274)
3. Jahoor Mohd. S/o Ali Mohd., R/o 2-Ka-2, Chawani Kota.
4. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch
Manager, Kota. Insurance, Company Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-
P-2274
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Man Singh, R/o Kota At Present
Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan
----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 115/2018

Mohd Salim Ansari S/o Nazar Mohd, aged 64 years, R/o Gandoli
District Bundi Rajasthan
----Claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction
Kota. (Driver Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
2. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction,
Kota. (Owner Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (14 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

3. Jahoor Mohd. S/o Ali Mohd., R/o 2-Ka-2, Chawani Kota.
4. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch
Manager, Kota., Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. Rj-14-
P-2274
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Man Singh, R/o Kota At Present
Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan
----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 116/2018

Mohd Salim Ansari S/o Nazar Mohd, aged about 64 years, R/o
Gandoli District Bundi Rajasthan
----Claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction
Kota. (Driver Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
2. Mukesh Kumar S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota
Junction, Kota. (Owner Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
3. Jahoor Mohd. S/o Ali Mohd., R/o 2-Ka-2, Chawani Kota.
4. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch
Manager, Kota. (Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. RJ-
14-P-2274)
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Man Singh, R/o Kota At Present
Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan
----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 118/2018

1. Mohd Salim Ansari S/o Nazar Mohd., aged about 64
years, R/o Gandoli District Bundi Rajasthan
2. Irfan S/o Mohd Salim, aged about 25 years, R/o Gandoli
District Bundi Rajasthan
----Claimants/Appellants
Versus
1. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction,
(Driver Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
2. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction,
Kota. (Owner Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
3. Jahoor Mohd. S/o Ali Mohd., R/o 2-Ka-2, Chawani Kota.
4. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (15 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

Manager, Kota. (Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. RJ-
14-P-2274)
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Man Singh, R/o Kota At Present
Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan
----Non-claimants/Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 131/2018
Mohd Sadiq Ansari S/o Mohd Nafis Ansari, aged 64 years, R/o
Village And Post Lakheri Dhakka Ki Tapri, Nayapura Distt. Bundi
Raj.
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction,
Kota. (Driver Of Vehicle No. RJ14-P-2274)
2. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction,
Kota. (Owner Of Vehicle No. RJ14-P-2274)
3. Jahoor Mohd. S/o Ali Mohd., R/o 2-Ka-2, Chawani Kota.
4. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch
Manager, Kota. Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. RJ14-
P-2274
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Man Singh, R/o Kota At Present
Shanti Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 135/2018
Mohd Salim Ansari S/o Nazar Mohd, aged 64 years,R/o Gandoli
District Bundi Rajasthan
----Claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction,
Kota. (Driver Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
2. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction,
Kota. (Owner Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
3. Jahoor Mohd. S/o Ali Mohd., R/o 2-Ka-2, Chawani Kota.

4. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch
Manager, Kota., Insurance Company Of Vehicle No.RJ-14-
P-2274
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Man Singh, R/o Kota At Present
Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Rajsthan
----Non-claimants/Respondents

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (16 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 154/2018

1. Kumari Phoolbano D/o Sanno Hafiz, aged about 22 years,
R/o Behind Jama Majid, Ward No.13 Nenwa District Bundi
Rajasthan
2. Smt Chandabi W/o Late Madari Khan aged 54 years,, R/o
Behind Jama Majid, Ward No. 13 Nenwa District Bundi
Rajasthan (Died)
2/1. Baneey Kia D/o Late Madari Khan.
2/2. Munna S/o Late Madari Khan
2/3. Anu D/o Late Madari Khan
2/4. Mohd Rafiq S/o Late Madari Khan
----Claimants/Appellants
Versus
1. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction,
Kota Driver Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274
2. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction
Kota. Owner Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274
3. Jahoor Mohd. S/o Ali Mohd., R/o 2-Ka-2, Chawani Kota.
4. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch
Manager, Kota., Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-
P-2274
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Man Singh, R/o Kota At Present
Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan
----Non-claimants/Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 155/2018
Phoolbano D/o Sanno Hafiz, aged 22 years, R/o Behind Jama
Majid, Ward No.13 Nenwa District Bundi Rajasthan
----Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction
Kota (Driver Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
2. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction,
Kota. (Owner Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
3. Jahoor Mohd. S/o Ali Mohd., R/o 2-Ka-2 Chawani Kota.
Rajasthan
4. New India Insurance Company Ltd, Through Branch.
Manager, Kota. Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (17 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

P-2274
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Man Singh, R/o Kota At Present
Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan
----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 156/2018

1. Abdul Rahim Ansari S/o Mohd Nafis, aged 69 years, R/o
Dhakka Ki Tapriya, Nayapura District Bundi Rajasthan
2. Smt Akhtar Bano W/o Abdul Rahim Ansari, aged 67
years,R/o Dhakke Ki Tapriya, Nayapura District Bundi
Rajsthan
----Claimants/Appellants
Versus
1. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction
Kota. (Driver Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
2. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction,
Kota. (Owner Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
3. Jahoor Mohd. S/o Ali Mohd., R/o 2-Ka-2, Chawani Kota.
4. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch
Manager, Kota. Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-
P-2274
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Man Singh, R/o Kota At Present
Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan
----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 157/2018

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (18 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

4. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch
Manager, Kota., Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. RJ14-
P-2274
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Man Singh, R/o Kota At Present
Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan
----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 180/2018

1. Smt Nazma Bano W/o Late Naney Khan, aged 54 years
2. Kumari Shaeena D/o Late Naney Khan aged 24 years
3. Kamlimuddin S/o Late Naney Khan aged 22 years
4. Moinuddin S/o Late Naney Khan aged 22 years
All are R/o Behind Jama Majid, Ward No.13 Nenwa District
Bundi Rajasthan
----Claimants/Appellants
Versus
1. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction,
Kota. (Driver Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
2. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction
Kota (Owner Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
3. Jahoor Mohd. S/o Ali Mohd., R/o 2-Ka-2, Chawani Kota.
4. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch
Manager, Kota. (Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. RJ-
14-P-2274)
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Man Singh, R/o Kota At Present
Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan
----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 181/2018

Kumari Phoolbano D/o Sanno Hafiz, R/o Behind Jama Majid,
Ward No.13 Nenwa District Bundi Rajasthan
----Claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction,
Kota. (Driver Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
2. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction
Kota. (Owner Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
3. Jahoor Mohd. S/o Ali Mohd., R/o 2-Ka-2, Chawani Kota.

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (19 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

4. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch
Manager, Kota., Insurance Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Man Singh, R/o Kota At Present
Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Rajathan
----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 182/2018

Kumari Phoolbano D/o Sanno Hafiz, aged about 22 years, R/o
Behind Jama Majid, Ward No.13 Nenwa District Bundi Rajasthan
----Claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction
Kota. (Driver Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
2. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction,
Kota. (Owner Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
3. Jahoor Mohd. S/o Ali Mohd., R/o 2-Ka-2, Chawani Kota.
4. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch
Manager, Kota., Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-
P-2274
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Man Singh, R/o Kota At Present
Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 183/2018

Kumari Phoolbano D/o Sanno Hafiz, aged 22 years, R/o Behind
Jama Majid, Ward No.13 Nenwa District Bundi Rajasthan
----Claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction
Kota. (Driver Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
2. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction
Kota. (Owner Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
3. Jahoor Mohd. S/o Ali Mohd., R/o 2-Ka-2, Chawani Kota.
4. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch
Manager, Kota, Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-
P-2274
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Man Singh, R/o Kota At Present
Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Rajathan

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (20 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 191/2018

Mohd Sadiq Ansari S/o Mohd Nafis Ansari, aged 64 years, R/o
Village And Post Lakheri Dhakka Ki Tapri, Nayapura District Bundi
Rajasthan
----Claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction
Kota. (Driver Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
2. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction,
Kota. (Owner Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
3. Jahoor Mohd. S/o Ali Mohd., R/o 2-Ka-2, Chawani Kota.
4. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch
Manager, Kota., Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-
P-2274
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Man Singh, R/o Kota At Present
Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan
----Non-claimants/Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 210/2018

1. Abdul Rahim Ansari S/o Mohd Nafis, aged 69 years, R/o
Dhakka Ki Tapriya, Nayapura Distt. Bundi Raj.
2. Smt Akhtar Bano W/o Abdul Rahim Ansari, aged 67 years,
R/o Dhakke Ki Tapriya, Nayapura Distt. Bundi Raj.
----Claimants/Appellants
Versus
1. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction,
Kota. (Driver Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
2. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction,
Kota. (Owner Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
3. Jahoor Mohd. S/o Ali Mohd., R/o 2-Ka-2, Chawani Kota.
4. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch
Manager, Kota. Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-
P-2274
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Man Singh, R/o Kota At Present
Shanti Nagar, Jaipur.
----Non-claimants/Respondents

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (21 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 340/2018
1. Kumari Tanveer Fatma D/o Mohd Sadik Ansari aged about
28 years, R/o Village & Post Lakheri Dhakka Ki Tapri,
Nayapura District Bundi Rajasthan
2. Mohd Sadik Ansari S/o Mohd Nafis Ansari, aged about 64
years R/o Village & Post Lakheri Dhakka Ki Tapri,
Nayapura District Bundi Rajasthan
----Claimants/Appellants
Versus
1. Lakhan Singh S/o Sona, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction
Kota. (Driver Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
2. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction,
Kota. (Owner Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2274)
3. Jahoor Mohd. S/o Ali Mohd., R/o 2-Ka-2, Chawani Kota.
Rajasthan
4. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch
Manager Kota., Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. RJ-14-
P-2274
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Man Singh, R/o Kota At Present
Shanti Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan
----Non-claimants/Respondents

For Insurance Company : Mr. Rishipal Agarwal, Adv. with
Mr. Vimal Kumar Yadav, Adv. &
Mr. Mihir Jangid, Adv.
For Claimants : Mr. Avinash Dhanju, Adv. with
Mr. Kamlesh Kaswan, Adv. on behalf
of Mr. Rohit Khandelwal, Adv.
For Owner-Jahur Mohd. : Mr. Shamsuddin Ansari, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Judgment

Date of Arguments Concluded : 28/01/2026

Date of Judgment Reserved : 28/01/2026

Full/Operative Part Uploaded : Full

Date of Judgment Pronounced : 31/01/2026

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (22 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

1. As the present miscellaneous appeals have been filed against

the common judgment and award dated 24.06.2017 passed by

the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bundi (hereinafter

referred to as learned 'Tribunal'), the same are being heard and

decided by the instant common judgment.

2. The instant appeals have been preferred by the appellants

under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter

referred to as 'Act of 1988'), challenging the impugned judgment

and award dated 22.07.2008 passed by learned Tribunal whereby,

the claim petitions filed by the claimants were partly allowed.

Aggrieved of the judgment and award dated 22.07.2008, appeals

were filed before this Court and vide common order dated

23.05.2011, the Coordinate Bench of this Court set aside the

findings of the learned tribunal and remanded back the claim

petitions to be decided afresh by the learned Tribunal.

3. Learned Tribunal vide common judgment and award dated

24.06.2017 decided the claim petitions afresh in terms of

compensation awarded in favour of the claimants. Hence, the

present appeals were filed. This is the second round of litigation

against the earlier award dated 22.07.2008.

4. The following appeals have been filed by the claimants-

appellants challenging the impugned judgement and award dated

24.06.2017 on the ground of enhancement of the compensation,

which will be decided later in this judgment:-

TOTAL 17 APPEALS : S.B. C.M.A. Nos.95/2018, 115/2018,

116/2018, 118/2018, 131/2018, 135/2018, 154/2018,

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (23 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

155/2018, 156/2018, 157/2018, 180/2018, 181/2018,

182/2018, 183/2018, 191/2018, 210/2018 & 340/2018.

5. The following appeals have been filed by the appellant-

Insurance Company challenging the impugned judgement and

award dated 24.06.2017:-

Total 24 Appeals: S.B. C.M.A. No.5344/2017, 5259/2017,

5260/2017, 5261/2017, 5262/2017, 5263/2017,

5264/2017, 5266/2017, 5267/2017, 5280/2017,

5281/2017, 5282/2017, 5283/2017, 5284/2017,

5285/2017, 5286/2017, 5287/2017, 5288/2017,

5289/2017, 5334/2017, 5335/2017, 5336/2017,

5337/2017 & 5338/2017.

6. The appellant-Insurance Company has assailed the impugned

judgement and award dated 24.06.2017, primarily on four

grounds, that:-

1. the offending bus was being plied on a route for
which it did not possess a valid permit;
2. the number of passengers travelling in the bus
exceeded its sanctioned seating capacity; and
3. the driver was not holding a valid driving licence
to drive the offending vehicle.
4. the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award
and judgement while considering higher future
prospects for claimants.

7. The first contention raised by learned counsel for the

appellant-Insurance Company is that the offending bus was being

operated on a route not covered by the permit, therefore, the

appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the

insured.

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (24 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

8. Whereas, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants

submits that the statutory defence circumscribed by Section

149(2) of the Act of 1988 does not confer a general right upon the

insurer to avoid liability on every violation of the permit. The

condition contemplated under the aforesaid provision is breach of

a specified condition of the insurance policy and not breach of the

permit conditions.

9. The Coordinate bench of this Court in the case of R.K.

College Vs. Ramesh Chand & Ors. reported in 2007 SCC

OnLine Raj 393, has held as under:-

"12. It is to be imbibed that an Insurance
Company assumes a particular risk as per the
terms of the insurance contract; and in the
vehicular insurance, such contract of insurance
is conditioned by the requirements of statute
particularly those of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. An Insurance Company that has assumed
the risk in relation to a motor vehicle, while
resisting any claim for compensation wherein
any amount of award is to become payable by
it, has been permitted to defend the action on
limited grounds as enumerated in Section
149(2) of the Act. The clause permitting a
defence to the insurer in relation to the permit
for use of a transport vehicle as contained in
Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) could be read, omitting
other phrases not relevant for the present
purpose, in the following manner:-
"(2).......and an insurer ......shall be entitled ......
to defend the action on any of the following
grounds, namely:--

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (25 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

(a) that there has been a breach of a specified
condition of the policy, being one of the
following conditions, namely:--
(i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle--
.... .... ....
(c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit
under which the vehicle is used, where the
vehicle is a transport vehicle,"
13. It is at once clear that the defence available
to the vehicle insurer is NOT of violation of
terms of permit BUT of breach of some specified
conditions of insurance policy, as detailed out in
clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of
the Act. In relation to the permit for a transport
vehicle, the breach (of insurance policy)
envisaged by the statutory provision is of using
the vehicle for a purpose other than that
allowed by the permit."

10. As per the judgment in R.K. College (supra), the distinction

between violation of permit conditions and breach of policy

conditions has been clearly expounded. The defence available to

the insurer is not of violation of the terms of permit but of breach

of some specified condition of the policy as enumerated under

Section 149(2) of the Act of 1988. In the present case, except

alleging that the bus was operating on a route not covered by the

permit, the appellant has failed to establish any breach of a

specific policy condition excluding such use. In absence of proof of

a fundamental breach falling within Section 149(2) of the Act of

1988, the insurer cannot escape liability. Therefore, this

contention of Insurance Company is not tenable.

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (26 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

11. The second contention argued by the learned counsel for the

appellant relating to overloading of passengers has been

conclusively settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam reported in

(2007) 7 SCC 445. The Apex Court, in this case, while dealing

with the extent of insurer's liability in such cases, has clearly held

as under:

"15. Section 58 of the Act makes special
provisions in regard to transport vehicles.
Sub-section (2) provides that a registering
authority, when registering a transport
vehicle, shall enter in the record of
registration and in the certificate of
registration various particulars. Clause (d)
provides that if the vehicle is used or
adapted to be used for carriage of
passengers, the number of passengers for
whom accommodation is provided. Thus
the registration of the vehicle, which alone
makes it usable on the road, records the
number of passengers to be carried and
the certificate of registration also contains
that entry. So, an Insurance Company
insuring the passengers carried in a vehicle
in terms of Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Act,
can only insure such number of passengers
as are shown in the certificate of
registration.
16. The position is reinforced by Section
72 of the Act, which deals with grant of
stage carriage permits. Sub-section (2)
provides that when a permit is decided to
be granted for a stage carriage, the

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (27 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

Regional Transport Authority can attach to
the permit one or more of the conditions
specified therein. Clause (vii) is the
condition regarding the maximum number
of passengers that may be carried in a
stage carriage. Overloading also invites a
consequence which can be termed penal.
Section 86 of the Act provides for
cancellation of a permit if any condition
contained in the permit is breached.
Therefore, the apparent wide words of
Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Act have to be
construed harmoniously with the other
provisions of the Act, namely, Sections 58
and 72 of the Act.
17. As early as in 1846, Dr. Lushington in
R.v.Eduljee Byramjee [(1846) 3 MIA 468]
posited that to ascertain the true meaning
of a clause in a statute the court must look
at the whole statute, at what precedes and
at what succeeds and not merely at the
clause itself. This Court has accepted this
approach in innumerable cases. Thus, the
expression "any passenger" must be
understood as passenger authorised to be
carried in the vehicle and "use of the
vehicle" as permitted use of the vehicle.
Affording of insurance for more number of
passengers than permitted, would be
illegal since in that case the manifest
intention would be the overloading of the
vehicle, something not contemplated by
law. Thus, it is not possible to accept a
contention that the insurance can be taken
to cover more passengers than permitted
by the certificate of registration and the

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (28 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

permit as a stage carriage and that it will
cover all the passengers overloaded. Of
course, in these cases, there is no dispute
that the insurance cover took in only the
permitted number of passengers."

12. The Hon'ble The Apex Court in the case of Anjana Shyam

(supra) has further clarified that the insurer remains liable at least

to the extent of the number of passengers covered under the

policy and that the remedy, if any, of the insurer lies elsewhere,

subject to the directions of the Tribunal.

13. Therefore, in the present matter, the learned Tribunal has

fastened liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company in

accordance with the settled legal position and this Court does not

warrant any interference in this regard.

14. The third contention raised by the learned counsel for the

appellant-Insurance Company is that the driver of the offending

vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence.

15. As per the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the cases of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental

Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 and

M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.

Rambha Devi & Ors. reported in (2024) 11 SCR 541, the

controversy with regard to holding a separate driving licence for

the 'light motor vehicle' viz-a-viz the 'light goods vehicle' stands

substantially addressed. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Mukund Dewangan (supra) has held that the holder of a driving

licence to drive the 'light motor vehicle' with an unladen weight

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (29 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

which does not exceed 7,500 kg would also be competent to drive

the 'transport vehicle', thus, there is no requirement to obtain

separate endorsement to drive a 'transport vehicle' of such class.

Later on, the same issue was referred to the Constitutional Bench

of the Hon'ble Apex Court comprising of 5 Judges in the case of

Rambha Devi (supra) and the relevant portion is reproduced

hereinbelow:-

"131. Our conclusions following the above
discussion are as under:-
(I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor
Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d)
for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under
7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a 'Transport
Vehicle' without needing additional
authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the
MV Act specifically for the 'Transport Vehicle'
class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and
Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate
classes. An overlap exists between the two.
The special eligibility requirements will
however continue to apply for, inter alia,
e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying
hazardous goods.
(II) The second part of Section 3(1), which
emphasizes the necessity of a specific
requirement to drive a 'Transport Vehicle,'
does not supersede the definition of LMV
provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.
(III) The additional eligibility criteria specified
in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for
driving 'transport vehicles' would apply only
to those intending to operate vehicles with
gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e.
'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger
vehicle', 'heavy goods vehicle' and 'heavy
passenger vehicle'.
(IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan
(2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained
by us in this judgment. In the absence of any
obtrusive omission, the decision is not per
incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (30 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

Act and MV Rules were not considered in the
said judgment."

16. It is evident from the perusal of the record that the unladen

weight of the offending vehicle was 2283 kg, which is well below

the statutory limit of 7500 kg as prescribed for a 'Light Motor

Vehicle'. Relying upon the aforesaid settled principles of law laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above-mentioned cases

pertaining to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that

the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid licence to

drive the offending vehicle and thereby, there is no breach of

specified condition of the policy.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has

further contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in applying

addition towards Future Prospects in an inconsistent manner,

therefore, 50% of the income was added where the

injured/deceased was below 40 years of age, 30% where between

40 and 50 years, and 15% where between 50 and 60 years. It has

also been urged that in cases where the deceased/injured was up

to 15 years of age, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier and

future prospects on the basis of the age of the mother/

father/legal representative, which, according to the appellant, is

not in consonance with settled principles.

18. Having considered the submissions, this Court finds merit in

the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant-

Insurance Company to the limited extent of standardisation of the

addition towards Future Prospects. In order to ensure uniformity,

consistency and adherence to the prevailing legal principles

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (31 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

governing assessment of compensation, this Court deems it

appropriate to apply a uniform addition towards 'Future Prospects'

in all the connected matters as per the law laid down in Pranay

Sethi (supra), irrespective of minor variations adopted by the

learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the awards under the head of Future

Prospects stand modified to the extent that the income of the

deceased/injured in each claim petition shall be enhanced by

40%, and the compensation shall be re-calculated on that basis

wherever required. The impugned judgment and award dated

24.06.2017 passed by learned Tribunal stand modified to this

extent.

19. Therefore, in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the cases of R.K. College (supra), Anjana Shyam

(supra), Mukund Dewangan (supra) and Rambha Devi (supra),

this Court does not find any merit in the present appeals, hence,

the same are liable to be partly allowed.

20. Consequently, the appeals filed on behalf of the appellant-

Insurance Company being devoid of merit are hereby partly

allowed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

S.B. C.M.A. Nos.183/2018, 157/2018, 156/2018,

115/2018, 155/2018, 131/2018, 210/2018, 135/2018,

181/2018, 95/2018 & 191/2018-

21. In the above-mentioned appeals filed by the claimants-

appellants wherein the deceased persons were below the age of

15 years, challenging the impugned judgement and award dated

24.06.2017 on the ground of enhancement of the compensation,

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (32 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

the learned Tribunal determined the monthly income of the

deceased/injured below 15 years of age as Rs. 750/- per month,

and for injured/deceased above 15 years of age, determined

monthly income as per the prevalent minimum wages rates

prescribed by Rajasthan Government, payable on the date of

accident, i.e., Rs. 884/- per month.

22. Further, for injured/deceased below 40 years of age, 50% of

the income was added towards future prospects; for those

between 40 and below 50 years, 30%; and for those between 50

and up to 60 years, 15 per cent of the income was added under

the head of 'Future Prospects'. Where the deceased/injured is up

to 15 years of age, his/her own expenses were taken as 1/2 of the

income, and the multiplier and the Future Prospect was applied on

the basis of the age of the 'Mother' (if alive, otherwise 'Father') or

any other legal representative.

23. To decide the above-mentioned appeals, this Court relies

upon the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the cases of (1) National Insurance Company Limited v.

Pranay Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 &

(2) Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari &

Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 10278/2025 (Arising Out of SLP (C)

No. 14444/2025)]. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Hitesh Nagjibhai (supra) has held that:-

"15. For the purpose of emphasis, it is again
clarified here that when a Tribunal or the High
Court in appeal, is concerned with the case
involving a child having suffered injury or
having passed away, the calculation of loss of

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (33 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

income necessarily has to be made on the
matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled
worker in the respective State at the relevant
point of time. It is our hope that this
restatement helps avoiding such errors and
thereby obviates the necessity of this Court's
interference, applying well-established
principles of law."
24. Relying upon the decision rendered in the case of Hitesh

Nagjibhai Patel (supra), this Court deems it proper to consider

the deceased children under the category of 'skilled worker'.

Moreover, considering the year of the accident i.e 1996, no

minimum wage rates were specifically prescribed for the year

1996 as the State Government revised the minimum wage rates in

the year 1998 right after the year 1994. In the year 1994, the

prescribed daily income of a worker under the skilled category is

Rs.34 and in the year 1998, the prescribed daily income of a

worker under the skilled category is Rs.50. In such circumstances,

based on the then prevalent minimum wage, this court deems it

appropriate to determine the daily income of the deceased

children under the skilled category as Rs.42/- and accordingly,

monthly income as Rs.42 x 30 i.e. Rs. 1260/-.

25. According to the principle enunciated in Pranay Sethi

(supra), 40% increase in 'Future Prospect' of the monthly income

is to be considered while taking the age of the deceased children

into account. Accordingly, 40% of Rs.1260 is Rs.504/-. After

adding this amount of 40% increment to the monthly income of

the deceased children, the total monthly income comes to

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (34 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

Rs.504+Rs.1260= Rs. 1764/-, which will be the basis for

determining compensation.

26. Considering the fact that in these appeals, age of the

deceased children were unmarried therefore, 1/2 part of the

income assessed of the deceased children is to be deducted. 1/2 X

Rs. 1764/- = Rs. 882/-, which after deducting from the assessed

monthly income, results in amount of Rs. 882/- as dependent

income.

27. Based on the principle propounded in the case of Sarla

Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and

others reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Pranay Sethi

(supra), a multiplier of 15 should be applied keeping in view the

age of the deceased children as below 15 years.

28. Accordingly, on the basis of the deceased children's monthly

income of Rs.882/-, the total loss of dependent income to the

appellant comes to Rs. 882 X 12 X 15 = Rs. 1,58,760/-, which the

appellant is entitled to receive.

29. Principle of awarding a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the

consortium head to each dependent has been laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). In such

circumstances, this Court considers it just and proper to award a

sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the consortium head (filial) to the

appellants representing the claimants.

30. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- to

the appellants representing the claimants under the head of

funeral expenses. Therefore, under the head of funeral expenses,

this Court, does not warrant any interference as the sum is

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (35 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

awarded in accordance with the principles laid down in Pranay

Sethi (supra). Further, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded under

the head of loss of estate to the appellants. Therefore, under the

head of loss of estate, this Court, in accordance with the principles

laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), considers it just and proper to

award a sum of ₹15,000/- to the appellants.

31. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- under

the head of litigation expenses and a sum of Rs. 1000/- under the

head of transport convenience. However, as per the directions

propounded in Pranay Sethi (supra), the consortium heads

includes only loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of

estate. Therefore, this Court does not deem it just and proper to

award a separate amount in terms of litigation expenses and

transport convenience.

32. Hence, in deciding the following appeals filed by the

claimants-appellants to enhance the compensation; wherein the

age of the deceased is below 15 years, this Court deems it proper

to apply the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the cases of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra) & Pranay Sethi

(supra):-

Claim
S. SB CMA Name of Deceased Age of the
Petition
No. Nos. Deceased
No.
1. 183/2018 320/2005 Kumari Kusnuma 8 years
2 157/2018 309/2005 Kumari Sabina 11 years
3. 156/2018 310/2005 Reshma Bano 13 years
4. 115/2018 314/2005 Imamuddin 8 years
5. 155/2018 315/2005 Kumari Pinky 5 years
6. 131/2018 316/2005 Shameena Bano 9 years
7. 210/2018 321/2005 Kumari Farzana Bano 10 years
8. 135/2018 324/2005 Sabbo @ Shama 5 years
9. 181/2018 327/2005 Kumari Razia 10 years

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (36 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

Claim
S. SB CMA Name of Deceased Age of the
Petition
No. Nos. Deceased
No.
10. 95/2018 328/2005 Kumari Reshma 12 years
11. 191/2018 330/2005 Saddam @ Nadeem Hussain 6 years

In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.183/2018-

At the time of the accident i.e 13.11.1996, the deceased

child Kumari Kusnuma was stated to be 8 years old and is

survived by only her sister.

Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to receive compensation

as follows:-

S. Heads Amount
No. (in Rs.)
1. Loss of Future income 1,58,760/-
2. Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to Total 40,000 /-
appellant)
3. Funeral Expenses 15,000 /-
4. Loss of Estate 15,000 /-
The amount of compensation determined by 2,28,760/-
this court
The amount of compensation awarded by the 1,59,000/-
learned Tribunal
Difference in compensation amount after 69,760/-
enhancement

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly

allowed, and the award of Rs.1,59,000/- passed by the learned

Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,28,760/-. Income tax will be

deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount

previously received by the appellant will be adjusted against the

award amount, and the appellant is entitled to receive the

remaining amount. The appellant is entitled to receive interest at

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (37 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced

by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition.

In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.157/2018-

At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased

child Kumari Sabina was stated to be 11 years old and is survived

by both her parents.

Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive

compensation as follows:-

S. Heads Amount
No.
(in Rs.)
1. Loss of Future income 1,58,760/-
2. Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- each to 80,000/-
both parents)
3. Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
4. Loss of Estate 15,000/-
The amount of compensation determined by 2,68,760/-
this Court
The amount of compensation awarded by the 2,40,700/-
learned Tribunal
Difference in compensation amount after 28,060/-
enhancement

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly

allowed, and the award of Rs.2,40,700/- passed by the learned

Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,68,760/-. Income tax will be

deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount

previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the

award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the

remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest

at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount

enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition.

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (38 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.156/2018-

At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased child

Reshma Bano was stated to be 13 years old and is survived by

both her parents.

Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive the

compensation as follows:-

S. Heads Amount
No. (in Rs.)
1. Loss of Future income 1,58,760/-
2. Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- each to 80,000/-
both parents)
3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
4 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
The amount of compensation determined by 2,68,760/-
this court
The amount of compensation awarded by the 2,40,700/-
learned Tribunal
Difference in compensation amount after 28,060/-
enhancement
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly

allowed, and the award of Rs.2,40,700/- passed by the learned

Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,68,760/-. Income tax will be

deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount

previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the

award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the

remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest

at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount

enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition.

In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.115/2018-
At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased

child Imamuddin was stated to be 8 years old and is survived by

only his father.

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (39 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive the
compensation as follows:-
S. Heads Amount
No. (in Rs.)
1 Loss of Future income 1,58,760/-
2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to father) 40,000/-
3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
4 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
The amount of compensation determined by 2,28,760/-
this court
The amount of compensation awarded by the learned 1,57,900/-
Tribunal
Difference in compensation amount after 70,860/-
enhancement

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed,

and the award of Rs.1,57,900/- passed by the learned Tribunal is

enhanced to Rs. 2,28,760/-. Income tax will be deducted from

this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by

the appellants will be adjusted against the award amount, and the

appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount. The

appellants are entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per

annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from

the date of filing of the claim petition.

In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.131/2018-

At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased

child Shameena Bano was stated to be 9 years old and is survived

by only her father.

Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive the

compensation as follows:-

S. Heads Amount
No. (in Rs.)

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (40 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

1 Loss of Future income 1,58,760/-
2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to father) 40,000/-
3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
4 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
The amount of compensation determined by 2,28,760/-
this court
The amount of compensation awarded by the 1,90,700/-
learned Tribunal
Difference in compensation amount after 38,060/-
enhancement

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly

allowed, and the award of Rs.1,90,700/- passed by the learned

Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,28,760/-. Income tax will be

deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount

previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the

award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the

remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest

at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount

enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition.

In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.210/2018-

At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased

child Kumari Farzana Bano was stated to be 10 years old and is

survived by both her parents.

Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive

compensation as follows:

S. Heads Amount
No. (in Rs.)
1 Loss of Future income 1,58,760/-
2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- each to both 80,000/-
parents)
3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
4 Loss of Estate 15,000/-

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (41 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

The amount of compensation determined by 2,68,760/-
this court
The amount of compensation awarded by the 2,40,700/-
learned Tribunal
Difference in compensation amount after 28,060/-
enhancement

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly

allowed, and the award of Rs.2,40,700/- passed by the learned

Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,68,760/-. Income tax will be

deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount

previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the

award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the

remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest

at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount

enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition.

In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.135/2018-

At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased

child Sabbo @ Shama was stated to be 5 years old and is survived

by only her father.

Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to receive compensation

as follows:-

S. Heads Amount
No. (in Rs.)
1 Loss of Future income 1,58,760/-
2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to father) 40,000/-
3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
4 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
The amount of compensation determined by 2,28,760/-
this court
The amount of compensation awarded by the 1,57,900/-
learned Tribunal
Difference in compensation amount after 70,860/-

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (42 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

enhancement

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly

allowed, and the award of Rs.1,57,900/- passed by the learned

Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,28,760/-. Income tax will be

deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount

previously received by the appellant will be adjusted against the

award amount, and the appellant is entitled to receive the

remaining amount. The appellant is entitled to receive interest at

the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced

by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition.

In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.95/2018-

At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased

child Kumari Reshma was stated to be 12 years old and is

survived by only her sister.

Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to receive compensation

as follows:

S. Heads Amount
No. (in Rs.)
1 Loss of Future income 1,58,760/-
2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to sister) 40,000/-
3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
4 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
The amount of compensation determined by 2,28,760/-
this court
The amount of compensation awarded by the learned 1,59,000/-
Tribunal
Difference in compensation amount after 69,760/-
enhancement

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed,

and the award of Rs.1,59,000/- passed by the learned Tribunal is

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (43 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

enhanced to Rs. 2,28,760/-. Income tax will be deducted from

this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by

the appellant will be adjusted against the award amount, and the

appellant is entitled to receive the remaining amount. The

appellant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per

annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from

the date of filing of the claim petition.

In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.191/2018-

At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased

child Saddam @ Nadeem Hussain was stated to be 6 years old and

is survived by only his father.

Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to receive compensation

as follows:

S. Heads Amount
No. (in Rs.)
1 Loss of Future income 1,58,760/-
2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to father) 40,000/-
3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
4 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
The amount of compensation determined by 2,28,760/-
this court
The amount of compensation awarded by the 1,90,700/-
learned Tribunal
Difference in compensation amount after 38,060/-
enhancement

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly

allowed, and the award of Rs.1,90,700/- passed by the learned

Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,28,760/-. Income tax will be

deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount

previously received by the appellant will be adjusted against the

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (44 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

award amount, and the appellant is entitled to receive the

remaining amount. The appellant is entitled to receive interest at

the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced

by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition.

In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.155/2018-

At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased

child Kumari Pinky was stated to be 5 years old and is survived by

only her sister.

Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to receive compensation

as follows:-

S. Heads Amount
No. (in Rs.)
1 Loss of Future income 1,58,760/-
2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to sister) 40,000/-
3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
4 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
The amount of compensation determined by 2,28,760/-
this court
The amount of compensation awarded by the 1,59,000/-
learned Tribunal
Difference in compensation amount after 69,760/-
enhancement

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly

allowed, and the award of Rs.1,59,000/- passed by the learned

Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,28,760/-. Income tax will be

deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount

previously received by the appellant will be adjusted against the

award amount, and the appellant is entitled to receive the

remaining amount. The appellant is entitled to receive interest at

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (45 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced

by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition.

In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.181/2018-

At the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, the deceased child

Kumari Razia was stated to be 10 years old and is survived by

only her sister.

Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to receive compensation as

follows:-

S. Heads Amount
No. (in Rs.)
1 Loss of Future income 1,58,760/-
2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to sister) 40,000/-
3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
4 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
The amount of compensation determined by 2,28,760/-
this court
The amount of compensation awarded by the 1,59,000/-
learned Tribunal
Difference in compensation amount after 69,760/-
enhancement

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly

allowed, and the award of Rs.1,59,000/- passed by the learned

Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,28,760/-. Income tax will be

deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount

previously received by the appellant will be adjusted against the

award amount, and the appellant is entitled to receive the

remaining amount. The appellant is entitled to receive interest at

the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced

by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition.

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (46 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.180/2018, 340/2018,

154/2018, 182/2018, 118/2018 and 116/2018-

33. In the above-mentioned appeals, the learned Tribunal

determined the monthly income of the deceased persons below 40

years of age as Rs. 884/- per month as per the prevalent

minimum wages rates prescribed by Rajasthan Government,

payable on the date of accident i.e., 13.11.1996. Further, for

injured/deceased below 40 years of age, 50% of the income was

erroneously added towards future prospects by the learned

Tribunal.

34. The above-mentioned appeals will be decided based on the

principles of law laid down the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following

cases:-

1) United India Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors.

reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780,

2) Magma General Insurance Company Limited

Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in

(2018) 18 SCC 130.

3) Sarla Verma (supra) &

4) Pranay Sethi (supra).

35. Considering the time of the accident i.e. 13.11.1996, all

the deceased persons were stated to be below 40 years of age,

therefore, considering the year of the accident i.e. 1996, no

minimum wage rates were specifically prescribed for the year

1996 as the State Government revised the minimum wage rates in

the year 1998 right after the year 1994. In the year 1994, the

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (47 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

prescribed daily income of a worker under the skilled category is

Rs.34 and in the year 1998, the prescribed daily income of a

worker under the skilled category is Rs.50. In such circumstances,

based on the then prevalent minimum wage, this court deems it

appropriate to determine the daily income of the deceased

persons under the skilled category as Rs.42/- and accordingly

monthly income as Rs.42 x 30 i.e. Rs. 1260/-.

36. According to the principle enunciated in Pranay Sethi

(supra), 40% increase in future prospect of the monthly income is

to be considered while taking the age of the deceased persons into

account. Accordingly, 40% of Rs.1260 is Rs.504/-. After adding

this amount of 40% increment to the monthly income of the

deceased persons, the total income is Rs.504+Rs.1260 =

Rs. 1764/-, which will be the basis for determining compensation.

37. Based on the principle propounded in the case of Sarla

Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), a multiplier should be

applied keeping in view the age of the deceased persons.

38. Principle of awarding a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the

consortium head to each dependent has been laid down in the

Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). In such

circumstances, this Court considers it just and proper to award a

sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the consortium head

(filial/spousal/parental) to each dependent.

39. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- to

the appellants under the head of funeral expenses. Therefore,

under the head of funeral expenses, this Court does not warrant

any interference as the sum is awarded in accordance with the

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (48 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). Further, a sum of

Rs.5,000/- was awarded under the head of loss of estate to the

appellants. Therefore, under the head of loss of estate, this Court,

in accordance with the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi

(supra), considers it just and proper to award a sum of ₹15,000/-

to the appellants.

40. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- under

the head of litigation expenses and a sum of Rs. 1000/- under the

head of transport convenience. However, as per the directions

propounded in Pranay Sethi (supra), the consortium heads

includes only loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of

estate. Therefore, this court does not deem it just and proper to

award a separate amount in terms of litigation expenses and

transport convenience.

In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.118/2018-

At the time of the accident i.e 13.11.1996, there were 2

dependents of the deceased i.e. her husband and a son.

In such circumstances, in view of the principle laid down in

Sarla Verma and in Pranay Sethi (supra), 1/3rd of the income is

required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the

deceased.

Accordingly, 1/3rd of the total income i.e Rs. 1764 which is

inclusive of future prospect, comes to Rs.588, and after deducting

the same from the monthly income, the remaining amount comes

to Rs. 1176/- as the monthly income available to the dependents.

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (49 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

Keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e. 37 years, multiplier of

15 is to be applied. Accordingly, the total loss of dependent

income to the appellants comes to Rs. 1176 X 12 X 15 = Rs.

2,11,680/-, which the appellants are entitled to receive.

Under the head of consortium, the husband and the son are

entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each under the spousal and

parental consortium respectively, totaling to Rs. 80,000/-.

Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive

compensation as follows:-

S. Heads Amount
No. (in Rs.)
1 Loss of Future income 2,11,680/-
2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to each 80,000/-
dependent)
3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
4 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
The amount of compensation determined 3,21,680/-
by this court
The amount of compensation awarded by the 2,75,300/-
learned Tribunal
Difference in compensation amount after 46,380/-
enhancement

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed,

and the award of Rs. 2,75,300/- passed by the learned Tribunal

is enhanced to Rs.3,21,680/-. Income tax will be deducted

from this amount as per the rules. The amount previously

received by the appellants will be adjusted against the award

amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the remaining

amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest at the

rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by

this order from the date of filing of the claim petition.

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (50 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.180/2018-

At the time of the accident i.e 13.11.1996, the deceased

Nanne Khan was aged 40 years. The deceased left behind 4

dependents, which includes his wife and three minor children.

In such circumstances, in view of the principle laid down in

Sarla Verma (supra) and in Pranay Sethi (supra), 1/4th of the

income is required to be deducted towards the personal expenses

of the deceased, as the number of dependents are 4.

Accordingly, considering the monthly income of Rs. 1,764/-

which is inclusive of future prospect, 1/4th comes to Rs. 441/-,

and after deducting the same from the monthly income, the

remaining amount comes to Rs. 1,323/- as the monthly income

available to the dependents.

Keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e. 40 years,

multiplier of 15 is to be applied as per the principle laid down in

Sarla Verma (supra).

Accordingly, the total loss of dependent income to the

appellants comes to Rs. 1,323 X 12 X 15 = Rs. 2,38,140/-, which

the appellants are entitled to receive.

Under the head of consortium, the wife is entitled to a sum

of Rs. 40,000/- under the spousal consortium and each of the

three children is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- under the parental

consortium, totaling to Rs. 1,60,000/-.

Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive

compensation as follows:

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (51 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

S. Heads Amount
No. (in Rs.)
1 Loss of Future income 2,38,140/-
2 Loss of Consortium - Rs. 40,000/- to each 1,60,000/-
dependent (wife + 3 children)
3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
4 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
The amount of compensation determined by 4,28,140/-
this court
The amount of compensation awarded by the 3,85,000/-
learned Tribunal
Difference in compensation amount after 43,140/-
enhancement

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly

allowed, and the award of Rs.3,85,000/- passed by the learned

Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,28,140/-. Income tax will be

deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount

previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the

award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the

remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest

at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount

enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition.

In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.116/2018-

At the time of the accident i.e 13.11.1996, the deceased

Rizwan was aged 18 years. The deceased was unmarried and his

father is the only dependent.

In such circumstances, in view of the principle laid down in

Sarla Verma (supra) and in Pranay Sethi (supra), 1/2 of the

income is required to be deducted towards the personal expenses

of the deceased, as the deceased was unmarried.

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (52 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

Accordingly, considering the monthly income of Rs. 1,764/-

which is inclusive of future prospect, 1/2 comes to Rs. 882/-, and

after deducting the same from the monthly income, the remaining

amount comes to Rs. 882/- as the monthly income available to

the dependent.

Keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e. 18 years,

multiplier of 18 is to be applied as per the principle laid down in

Sarla Verma (supra).

Accordingly, the total loss of dependent income to the

appellant comes to Rs. 882 X 12 X 18 = Rs. 1,90,512/-, which the

appellant is entitled to receive.

Under the head of consortium, the father is entitled to a sum

of Rs. 40,000/- under the filial consortium.

Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to receive compensation

as follows:

S. Heads Amount
No. (in Rs.)
1 Loss of Future income 1,90,512/-
2 Loss of Consortium - Rs. 40,000/- to the father 40,000/-
(filial)
3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
4 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
The amount of compensation determined by 2,60,512/-
this court
The amount of compensation awarded by the 2,24,200/-
learned Tribunal
Difference in compensation amount after 36,312/-
enhancement

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly

allowed, and the award of Rs.2,24,200/- passed by the learned

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (53 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,60,512/- Income tax will be

deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount

previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the

award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the

remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest

at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount

enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition.

In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.340/2018-

At the time of the accident i.e 13.11.1996, the deceased

Nafeesa Bano was aged 25 years. The deceased left behind her

minor daughter and the husband as dependents.

In such circumstances, in view of the principle laid down in

Sarla Verma (supra) and in Pranay Sethi (supra), 1/3rd of the

income is required to be deducted towards the personal expenses

of the deceased, as there are two dependents.

Accordingly, considering the monthly income of Rs. 1,764/-

which is inclusive of future prospect, 1/3rd comes to Rs. 588/-,

and after deducting the same from the monthly income, the

remaining amount comes to Rs. 1,176/- as the monthly income of

the deceased.

Keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e. 25 years,

multiplier of 18 is to be applied as per the principle laid down in

Sarla Verma (supra).

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (54 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

Accordingly, the total loss of dependent income to the

appellants comes to Rs. 1,176 X 12 X 18 = Rs. 2,54,016/-, which

the appellants are entitled to receive.

Under the head of consortium, the husband is entitled to a

sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the spousal consortium and the

daughter is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- under the parental

consortium, totaling to Rs. 80,000/-.

Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive

compensation as follows:

S. Heads Amount
No. (in Rs.)
1 Loss of Future income 2,54,016/-
2 Loss of Consortium - Rs. 40,000/- to each 80,000/-
dependent (husband + daughter)
3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
4 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
The amount of compensation determined by 3,64,016/-
this court
The amount of compensation awarded by the learned 2,99,200/-
Tribunal
Difference in compensation amount after 64,816/-
enhancement

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly

allowed, and the award of Rs.2,99,200/- passed by the learned

Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,64,016/- Income tax will be

deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount

previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the

award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the

remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (55 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount

enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition.

In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.154/2018-
At the time of the accident i.e 13.11.1996, the deceased

Sanno Hafeez was aged 27 years. The deceased left behind 2

dependents, his mother and minor daughter.

In such circumstances, in view of the principle laid down in

Sarla Verma and in Pranay Sethi supra, 1/3rd of the income is

required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the

deceased, as the number of dependents is 2.

Accordingly, considering the monthly income of Rs. 1,764/-

which is inclusive of future prospect, 1/3rd comes to Rs. 588/-,

and after deducting the same from the monthly income, the

remaining amount comes to Rs. 1,176/- as the monthly income

available to the dependents.

Keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e. 27 years,

multiplier of 17 is to be applied as per the principle laid down in

Sarla Verma (supra).

Accordingly, the total loss of dependent income to the

appellants comes to Rs. 1,176 X 12 X 17 = Rs. 2,40,096/-, which

the appellants are entitled to receive.

Under the head of consortium, the mother is entitled to a

sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the filial consortium and the daughter

is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- under the parental consortium, totaling

to Rs. 80,000/-.

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4001] (56 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017]

Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive

compensation as follows:

S. Heads Amount
No. (in Rs.)
1 Loss of Future income 2,40,096/-
2 Loss of Consortium - Rs. 40,000/- to each 80,000/-
dependent (mother + daughter)
3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
4 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
The amount of compensation determined by 3,50,096/
-

this court The amount of compensation awarded by the 2,86,300/- learned Tribunal Difference in compensation amount after 63,796/- enhancement Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed, and the award of Rs.2,86,300/- passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,50,096/- Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.182/2018- At the time of the accident i.e 13.11.1996, the deceased Smt. Shahzadi was aged 25 years. The deceased left behind her minor daughter and her husband, as dependents.

In such circumstances, in view of the principle laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) and in Pranay Sethi (supra), 1/3rd of the (Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM) (Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:55 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:4001] (57 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017] income is required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as the number of dependents are two.

Accordingly, considering the monthly income of Rs. 1,764/- which is inclusive of future prospect, 1/3rd comes to Rs. 588/-, and after deducting the same from the monthly income, the remaining amount comes to Rs. 1,176/- as the monthly income available to the dependents.

Keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e. 25 years, multiplier of 18 is to be applied as per the principle laid down in Sarla Verma (supra).

Accordingly, the total loss of dependent income to the appellant comes to Rs. 1,176 X 12 X 18 = Rs. 2,54,016/-, which the appellants are entitled to receive.

Under the head of consortium, the daughter and the husband are entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each, under the parental consortium and spousal consortium respectively.

Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive compensation as follows:

 S.                            Heads                                   Amount
 No.                                                                   (in Rs.)
  1    Loss of Future income                                           2,54,016/-
  2    Loss of Consortium - Rs. 40,000/- each to                         80,000/-
       the daughter and husband
   3   Funeral Expenses                                                  15,000/-
   4   Loss of Estate                                                    15,000/-
 The amount of compensation determined by                             3,64,016/-
 this court
 The amount of compensation awarded by the                             2,24,200/-
 learned Tribunal
 Difference in compensation amount after                              1,39,816/-
 enhancement

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM) (Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:55 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:4001] (58 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017] Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed, and the award of Rs.2,24,200/- passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,64,016/- Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. The amount previously received by the appellants will be adjusted against the award amount, and the appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellants are entitled to receive interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition.

41. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has also argued that the seating capacity of the offending vehicle was 21 and the Insurance Company has received the premium covering the risk of only 21 occupants of the offending vehicle. It is an admitted case that at the time of accident, 56 persons were sitting in the offending vehicle which is much more than the seating capacity of the offending vehicle. The Insurance Company is liable only to pay compensation up to 21 occupants and is not liable to pay any compensation to any claimant above the number of 21 occupants. Learned Tribunal has taken into consideration this aspect and applying the ratio, decided in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anjana Shyam (supra) and has held as below :-

"bl laca/k esa geus ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dh uthj 2007 ,-lh-ts- 2129 us'kuy ba';ksjsal daiuh fy0 cuke vatuk ';ke o vU; ls ekxZn'kZu izkIr fd;kA bl uthj esa ;g izfriknu fd;k x;k gS fd ,sls ekeyksa (Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM) (Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:55 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:4001] (59 of 59) [CMA-5344/2017] esa chek daiuh dks muds }kjk ns; ekeyksa ¼ftrus yksxksa dk izhfe;e fy;k x;k gS½ dh jkf'k olwy dh tk ldrh gSA ¼;s vf/kdre /ku jkf'k ds ekeys gksaxs½ mDr ekeyksa dh /ku jkf'k chek daiuh ls ,dtkbZ izkIr djds bl jkf'k dk lHkh ekeyksa ds ihfM+rksa ds e/; vkuqikfrd :i ls forj.k fd;k tk ldrk gSA"

42. Therefore, this Court does not want to interfere in the finding of learned Tribunal with regard to liability of the Insurance Company and disbursement of the claim among the claimants.

43. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the claimants-appellants as well as appellant-Insurance Company are disposed of, in terms of the discussion made hereinabove.

44. Copy of this order be placed separately in each file.

45. Stay applications and any other pending applications also stand disposed of.

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J AARZOO ARORA /---

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:50:56 AM) (Downloaded on 05/02/2026 at 08:53:55 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Kumari Phoolbano vs Lakhan Singh And Ors on 31 January, 2026