Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohan Lal And Ors vs Karamveer Singh And Ors. ... on 12 August, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:36014]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2208/2011
1. Mohan Lal s/o Balu Ram Teli, aged about 83 years,
2. Mangi bai w/o Mohan Lal Teli, aged 75 years,
3. Alol Bai w/o Late Shri madan Lal Ji, aged 45 years,
4. Miss Durga d/o Late Shri Madan Lal Ji, aged 29 years,
5. RajKumar s/o Late Shri Madan Lal Ji, aged 23 years,
6. Vimla d/o Late Shri Madan Lal Ji, aged 21 years,
All r/o Biliyakhurd Poice Thana Pratap Nagar, Biliwara,
District Bhilwara.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Karamveer Singh s/o Ramkaran Dahiya r/o House No.M-01,
Old DLF Sector No.14 Gurgaon (Haryana).
(Owner Maruti Car No.HR-99-HY-HQT-839).
2. Jagveer Singh s/o Ramkumar Dahiya r/o House No.M-01,
Old DLF Sector No.14 Gurgaon (Haryana).
(Driver maruti Car No.HR-99-HY-HQT-839).
3. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Through Manager, H-
10, 1st Floor, Netaji Subhash Palace, Delhi.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Darshan Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Singhal for the Insurance
Company.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
12/08/2025
1. The instant misc. appeal has been filed by the
claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 ('the Act of 1988') challenging the validity of
judgment/award dated 12.05.2011 passed by the learned Judge,
MACT, District Bhilwara, in MAC Case No.79/2008, whereby claim
petition of the claimants was partly allowed and they were
[2025:RJ-JD:36014] (2 of 5) [CMA-2208/2011]
awarded an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.9,75,000/-
in total with the interest @ 6% p.a.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants, Narayan son of
Madanlal, submitted a written report to the Officer-in-Charge,
Baneda, stating that on 17.01.2008, his father Madanlal and
Madanlal's friend Udayram Gadri were traveling from Baneda to
Rayla on motorcycle number RJ 06 SE 4275 to attend a pre-
wedding ceremony. On the way, a Maruti car bearing registration
number HR 99 AY 0839, being driven at high speed, negligently
and carelessly, collided head-on with their motorcycle. As a result,
Udayram died on the spot, and Madanlal, though taken to the
hospital in an injured condition, also succumbed to his injuries.
Based on the report, a case was registered, and after
investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused
Jagveer Singh and others before the competent court.
3. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal partly
allowed the claim petition of the claimants and vide
judgment/award dated 12.05.2011 awarded quantum of
compensation to the tune of Rs.9,75,000/- with the interest @6%
p.a. and being dissatisfied of the award, the claimants have
preferred the claim petition.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (MACT), Bhilwara, is manifestly inadequate and unjust.
The Tribunal applied multiplier of 12, which is inconsistent with the
age of the deceased, who was 45 years old at the time of the
accident. Furthermore, the Tribunal failed to consider the
deceased's future prospects, which should have been accounted
[2025:RJ-JD:36014] (3 of 5) [CMA-2208/2011]
for to reflect the potential for increased earnings. The amounts
awarded for consortium is Rs.30,000/- and funeral expenses
Rs.2,000/- 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 six in numbers
including his wife, three children and father and mother of the
deceased as per the guidelines laid down in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. :
(2017)16 SCC 680
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-
Insurance Company, vehemently opposes the submissions
advanced by the appellants counsel and urges that the award
passed by the Tribunal is just and does not warrants any
interference.
6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at
Bar and have gone through the impugned award.
7. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has wrongly
applied the multiplier of 12 instead of 13, as the age of the
deceased at the time of the accident was 45 years. The learned
tribunal also erred in deduction of 1/3rd, which ought to have
been 1/4th as the dependents of the deceased are six in number
including his wife, three children and father and mother of the
deceased. The claimants are thus held entitled to get
compensation under the Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary heads i.e.
Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses and that the
multiplier should be applied @ 13 as per the age of the deceased.
[2025:RJ-JD:36014] (4 of 5) [CMA-2208/2011]
As far as the deduction under the head of Contributory Negligence
is concerned, the learned Tribunal is perfectly justified in
deducting the same and thus, does not warrants any interference.
8. Since, both the learned counsels were directed to jointly submit
the calculation of the compensation awardable to the claimants
afresh in light of the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017)16 SCC 680 and Sarla
Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009
SC 3104, the award is modified in the following manner:-
Particulars Amount Amount
Awarded by Awarded by
Tribunal this Court
Monthly Income of the Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- (not
deceased (not disputed) disputed)
Loss of Income :- Rs.12,63,600/- (A)
Rs.10,000/- + 30% x 12 Rs.15,21,000/-
(yearly) x 13 (multiplier) x
1/4 (deduction)
(Add) Consortium :- Rs.30,000/- (B)
Rs.48,400/- x 6 Rs.2,90,400/-
(dependents).
(Add) Non-Pecuniary Rs.2000/- (C) Rs.36,300/-
Expenses/Damages (Funeral under Funeral
Expenses and Loss of Expenses.
Estate):-
Rs.18,150/- x 2
TOTAL (A), (B) and (C) Rs.12,95,600/- (D)
Rs.18,47,700/-
(Less) 25% Deduction Rs.3,25,000/- (E) Rs.4,61,925/-
towards Contributory
Negligence.
TOTAL (D) - (E) Rs.13,85,775/-
AWARDED BY TRIBUNAL Rs.9,75,000/-
ENHANCED AMOUNT Rs.13,85,775/- Rs.4,10,775/-
minus Rs.9,75,000/-
[2025:RJ-JD:36014] (5 of 5) [CMA-2208/2011]
9. Accordingly, the instant misc. appeal is partly allowed. The
amount of compensation payable to the claimants is further
enhanced by Rs.4,10,775/- in the terms stated above. 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.
10. The judgment-cum-award dated 12.05.2011 passed by the
learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara, in MAC
Case No.79/2008, is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
96-/Devesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
