Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rekha Kanwar vs Mohan Ram @ Bhallu (2025:Rj-Jd:13623) on 11 March, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:13623]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2604/2018

1. Rekha Kanwar W/o Late Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About
37 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Gajanand Colony, Suthala,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan. At Present R/o Village Gumansingh
Pura, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur.
2. Swaroop Kanwar D/o Late Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged
About 17 Years, Minor Through Their Natural Guardian
Mother Smt. Rekha Kanwar W/o Late Shri Bhanwar Singh.
B/c Rajput, R/o Gajanand Colony, Suthala, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan. At Present R/o Village Gumansingh Pura,
Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur.
3. Rawal Singh S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 16
Years, Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt.
Rekha Kanwar W/o Late Shri Bhanwar Singh. B/c Rajput,
R/o Gajanand Colony, Suthala, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. At
Present R/o Village Gumansingh Pura, Tehsil Shergarh,
District Jodhpur.
4. Maya D/o Late Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 15 Years,
Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rekha
Kanwar W/o Late Shri Bhanwar Singh. B/c Rajput, R/o
Gajanand Colony, Suthala, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. At Present
R/o Village Gumansingh Pura, Tehsil Shergarh, District
Jodhpur.
5. Jaswant Singh S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About
14 Years, Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother
Smt. Rekha Kanwar W/o Late Shri Bhanwar Singh. B/c
Rajput, R/o Gajanand Colony, Suthala, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan. At Present R/o Village Gumansingh Pura,
Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur.
6. Jasoda Kanwar D/o Late Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About
13 Years, Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother
Smt. Rekha Kanwar W/o Late Shri Bhanwar Singh. B/c
Rajput, R/o Gajanand Colony, Suthala, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan. At Present R/o Village Gumansingh Pura,
Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur.
7. Bhagwati Kanwar D/o Late Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged
About 8 Years, Minor Through Their Natural Guardian
Mother Smt. Rekha Kanwar W/o Late Shri Bhanwar Singh.
B/c Rajput, R/o Gajanand Colony, Suthala, Jodhpur,

(Downloaded on 13/03/2025 at 09:46:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13623] (2 of 6) [CMA-2604/2018]

Rajasthan. At Present R/o Village Gumansingh Pura,
Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur.
8. Smt. Chandra Kanwar W/o Late Shri Pabudan Singh, Aged
About 64 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Gajanand Colony,
Suthala, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. At Present R/o Village
Gumansingh Pura, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Mohan Ram @ Bhallu S/o Shri Hari Kishan, B/c Vishnoi,
R/o Village Khetolai, Pokran, District Jaisalmar, Rajasthan.
(Driver Bus No. Rj19 Pa 5311)
2. Ghanshyam Gandhi S/o Shri Ram Kishan, B/c
Maheshwari, R/o C-61, Iind Ext. Kamla Nehru Nagar,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Registered Owner Bus No. Rj19 Pa
5311)
3. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional
Office Second, Near Akhalia Circle, Chopasani Road,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan. At Present Divisional Office, Abhay
Chambers, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur. (Insurer Bus No. Rj19 Pa
5311)
----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.K. Sankhla
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Dadhich for
Mr. NK Mehta

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Judgment

11/03/2025
1. The present misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants-

claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount

awarded vide Judgment and Award dated 17.05.2018 passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal First, Jodhpur in MAC Case

No.296/2014 (NCV No.2619/2014).

The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment/award dated

17.05.2018 awarded a sum of Rs.11,65,480/- in favour of the

(Downloaded on 13/03/2025 at 09:46:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13623] (3 of 6) [CMA-2604/2018]

claimants alongwith interest @9% from the date of filing of claim

petition i.e. 20.11.2014.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants raised two

grounds before this Court, firstly, the learned Tribunal

erroneously computed the income of the deceased on basis of

minimum wages of a skilled labour at the rate of Rs.5,434/- per

month whereas it was proved on record that the deceased was

owner of a mini truck and he himself drove the same. Meaning

thereby, he was a driver by profession and earned Rs.20,000/- per

month.

3. Counsel submitted that although no document to prove the

income was exhibited but then, the Registration Certificate of the

vehicle in question in the name of deceased was available on

record to prove that the deceased was the owner of the said

vehicle. He was driving the same vehicle at the time of accident.

Counsel further submitted that even the oral evidence as led by

the claimants to prove the income of the deceased has not been

controverted by the respondent-Insurance Company rather the

same has been admitted. Therefore, there was no reason to

disbelieve the version of the claimants and hence, the income of

the deceased ought to have been considered at the rate of

Rs.20,000/- per month.

4. In support of his submissions counsel placed reliance on the

judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of

Chandra and Ors. Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Ors.;

(2022) 1 SCC 198 and Sushila & Ors. Vs. Ram Swaroop &

Ors.; Civil Appeal No.3247 of 2023 (decided on 01.05.2023).

(Downloaded on 13/03/2025 at 09:46:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13623] (4 of 6) [CMA-2604/2018]

5. Secondly, the learned Tribunal erred in not awarding the

amount qua consortium to all the dependents which is contrary to

the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and

Ors,; (2017) 16 SCC 680.

6. Per contra counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance

Company submitted that in absence of any evidence of the income

of the deceased, the learned Tribunal rightly computed the same

on basis of the minimum wages prevalent at that point of time.

7. Heard the counsels and perused the record.

8. A bare perusal of the record reflects that the wife of the

deceased, Rekha Kanwar (A.W-1), specifically deposed that her

husband earned a monthly income of Rs.20,000/ by driving a Tata

407 truck. Further, the 'Driving License' (Exhibit-14) and

'Registration Certificate' (Exhibit-13) of the mini truck as placed on

record clearly reflect that the deceased was the owner of the

vehicle (TATA 407) and was engaged in the occupation of driving.

9. True it is that no documentary evidence has been placed on

record to prove the income of the deceased as averred by the

claimants, but then, the deceased who was 39 years old at the

time of accident and owned a vehicle, was definitely earning some

amount for his livelihood. Further, the averment of the deceased

being a driver by profession, has not been controverted by the

respondents.

10. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of

legislation and thus, mere absence of documentary evidence to

prove the income of the deceased would not justify the adoption

(Downloaded on 13/03/2025 at 09:46:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13623] (5 of 6) [CMA-2604/2018]

of a minimum wage, that too, when it was proved on record that

the deceased was a driver by profession. Thus, in interest of

equity and justice, this Court deems it appropriate to determine

the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.8,000/-.

11. With regard to the amount to be awarded under the

conventional head of 'Consortium', the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the

case of Pranay Sethi (surpa) has fixed the amount payable under

the conventional head of loss of consortium to be Rs.40,000/-.

Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Magma General

Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram;(2018)

18 SCC 130 interpreted 'consortium' to be a compendious term,

which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium as

well as filial consortium. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion

that the said amount ought to be awarded to each of the

appellants-claimants.

12. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed and the

impugned judgment/award dated 17.05.2018 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal First, Jodhpur in MAC Case No.296/2014

(NCV No.2619/2014) is modified to the extent that the appellants-

claimants shall be entitled to the following compensation:

1. Income per month (after addition of Rs.8,960/-
future prospects (40%) and deduction
for personal and living expenses (1/5)
in the monthly income of Rs.8,000/-)
2. Loss of Income (as per the age of the 8,960x12x15=
deceased i.e. 39 years, a multiplier of
Rs.16,12,800/-
15)
3. Under the head of 'Consortium' 40,000 x 8 =
Rs.3,20,000/-
4. Under the head of 'Funeral Expenses' Rs.15,000/-
5. Under the head of 'Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-

(Downloaded on 13/03/2025 at 09:46:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13623] (6 of 6) [CMA-2604/2018]

6. Total amount of compensation Rs.19,62,800/-
7. Amount awarded by Tribunal/Court Rs.11,65,480/-
8. Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.19,62,800/-
- Rs.11,65,480/-
-------------------

Rs.7,97,320/-

13. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum

from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment

is made. The respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the award amount (if not deposited yet) and the enhanced amount

of compensation with the Tribunal within a period of two months

from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the

same shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of this

order till actual realization. Upon deposition, the learned Tribunal

is directed to disburse the same to the claimants in terms of the

award.

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