Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Nanidevi And Ors vs Rajulal And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:24242) on 9 May, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:24242]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 915/2004
1. Smt. Nanidevi wife of Shri Asharam Gameti
2. Sh. Khuma father of Ramji Gameti
3. Smt. Amaribai wife of Khumaji Gameti
4. Sh. Bhagwanlal father of Asharam Gameti, aged about 12
years.
5. Ms. Pappu Kumari daughter of Asharam Gameti, aged about
10 years.
6. Ms. Dipi Kumari daugher of Asharam Gameti, aged about 8
years.
7. Ms. Mohani Kumar daughter of Asharam Gameti, aged about 6
years.
8. Ms. Rajkumari daughter of Asharam Gameti, aged about 4
years.
9. Ms. Kanku Kumari daughter of Asharam Gameti, aged about 2
years.
(all the minors through natural guardian of Claimant No.1- Smt.
Nainidevi) and all are resident of Village Bandiya, Tehsil
Ralmagara, District Rajsamand.
                                                                      ----Claimants
                                        Versus
1. Sh. Rajulal father of Shankar Lal Purohit, resident of
Chikalvas, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand.
2.    Sh. Sanker father of Pratapji Purohit Brahmin resident of
Chikalvas, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand.
3. The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Udaipur.
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)              :     Mr. Rishabh Shrimali, Advocate
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Vishal Raj mehta, Advocate
                                    Mr. Nikhil Ajmera, Advocate and
                                    Mr. Lokendra Singh Chundawat,
                                    Advocate for
                                    Mr. Sandeep Saruparia, Advocate


              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

Reserved on: 09/05/2025 Pronounced on: 22/05/2025

[2025:RJ-JD:24242] (2 of 8) [CMA-915/2004]

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the

claimants, praying for enhancement of the amount as awarded in

their favour by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,

Rajsamand, in MAC case No.49/2003 (Smt. Nani Devi & Ors. v.

Rajulal & Ors.), whereby, by way of judgment and award dated

15.01.2004, an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- along with interest @9%

per annum (from the date of filing of the application

i.e., 24.01.2003) was awarded in favour of the claimants.

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the claim petition,

are that the deceased, Asharam, was riding a scooter at

approximately 5:30 PM on 30.12.2002, traveling from Pakhand to

Salore. At the same time, bus no. RJ-26-P-0178, coming from the

opposite direction, was driven rashly and negligently by its driver,

resulting in a collision with Asharam, which led to his death.

Shankar Lal, who was riding as a pillion, also sustained various

injuries. Separate claim applications were filed by the legal

representatives of Asharam and by Shankar Lal. However, both

applications were decided together by way of common judgment

and award dated 15.01.2004.

3. The learned Tribunal, while deciding issues no. 3 and 5,

determined the quantum of compensation and all other issues

concerning the negligence of the driver and the insurance status

of the vehicle were decided in favour of the claimant. While

deciding the issue nos.3 & 5 the learned Tribunal treated the

income of deceased- Asharam as Rs.1800/- and deducted 1/3 rd as

his personal expenses from the above mentioned income while

determining the quantum of compensation. The age of the

deceased was treated as 35 years and the factor of 17 was applied

[2025:RJ-JD:24242] (3 of 8) [CMA-915/2004]

by the learned Tribunal. As far as funeral expenses is concerned

Rs.4000/- were awarded and for loss of consortium Rs.20,000/-

were awarded. Thus the total of Rs.2,70,000/- was awarded to the

appellants.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both

the claim petition and the statement of AW-1, Nani Bai (wife of the

appellant), clearly indicated that the deceased's monthly income

was ₹5,000. However, without any substantiated basis and despite

the absence of cross-examination, the learned Tribunal assessed

the income at ₹1,800. Regarding the income, the statements

provided by AW-1, Nani Bai, are very unambiguous. Therefore,

the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased's income at

₹1,800 when calculating the quantum of compensation.

Furthermore, it has been asserted that the amount awarded for

loss of consortium is inadequate and does not align with the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. The same is the

position for the amounts awarded for loss of estate and funeral

expenses. Additionally, it has been asserted that the deduction for

personal expenses was incorrectly calculated as one-third,

whereas it should have been one-fifth, given that the number of

dependents exceeded six. In determining the deduction, the

learned Tribunal did not consider the authoritative pronouncement

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi

Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.

5. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent--

Insurance Company--has supported the award, stating that the

learned Tribunal rightly assessed the deceased's income at ₹1,800

[2025:RJ-JD:24242] (4 of 8) [CMA-915/2004]

per month. This assessment was based on the testimony of the

appellant's wife, Smt. Nani Bai, who was uncertain about her

husband's current earnings and mentioned that approximately 15

years ago, he earned ₹5,000 per month. This indicates that the

income figure was speculative and lacked substantiation. However,

the respondent's counsel did not dispute the deduction factor

applied, which aligns with the guidelines established in the Sarla

Verma case. Additionally, the counsel was not in a position to

dispute the amounts which were to be awarded under the heads

of funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium, as per

the judgment in Pranay Sethi, referred to supra.

6. The counsel for the other respondents i.e. the driver and the

owner have supported the stand taken by the counsel for the

respondent- Insurance Company.

7. Heard the counsel for both the sides and having perused the

record, it is evident that the appellant's wife, Smt. Nani Bai (AW-

1), consistently stated that her husband's monthly income was

₹5,000. This assertion was also reflected in their claim petition. In

contrast, the respondent--Insurance Company did not cross-

examine the witness regarding the deceased's income. Instead,

during cross-examination, they inquired about the income the

deceased earned 15 years prior to the incident. Further, AW-2

Shankar had also specified that he used to earn Rs.4000/- and

the deceased Asharam used to earn Rs.5000/- per month. It has

further been stated that he used to work along with Asharam

under Lalu Ram, Contractor. It is clear that as far as the income

part is concerned the averment made by the claimant remains

uncontroverted. The learned Tribunal without any basis has come

[2025:RJ-JD:24242] (5 of 8) [CMA-915/2004]

to the conclusion that if the deceased was earning Rs.5000/-

fifteen years ago, there was no reason to believe he was still

earning the same amount at the time of his death.

8. The above mentioned aspect might be a consideration for

awarding compensation while treating the income to be enhanced

after 15 years of initial income but by no chance the income can

be treated to less than the income which was shown to have been

earned 15 years back. Thus there was no justification for the

learned Tribunal to have treated the income of the deceased as

Rs.1800/- per month. Thus the finding on issue no.3 to the extent

of the monthly income ascertained as Rs.1800/- deserves to be

quashed and rather the income to be treated for calculation of the

compensation should have been treated as Rs.5000/- per month.

9. The learned Tribunal also did not considered the aspect of

future prospects and also has wrongly deducted one-third amount

for personal expenses from the monthly income. Taking guidance

from the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court from

"Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.",

as referred to (supra). It has been specified as under:-

30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

[2025:RJ-JD:24242] (6 of 8) [CMA-915/2004]

10. In the present case, admittedly the number of dependent

family members of the deceased were more than six (7 in total).

Thus, the deduction should have been 1/5th as per the judgment of

the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the learned Tribunal has

deducted 1/3rd and thus the award to that extent needs to be

modified. Thus, the total sum to be calculated would be as

such:-

Income per month:5000-1/5th (1,000)= 4000

Compensation =5,000 X 12 X 17= 8,16,000 was to be

awarded.

11. As far as, the future prospects are concerned, the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the judgment of "National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680" referred to (supra)

as specified under para 59.4 held as under:

In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

12. In the present case, since the deceased was not a salaried

employee but was self-employed and was 35 years of age at the

time of accident, therefore, 40% future prospects were required to

be added which has not been considered by the learned Tribunal.

The sum would be as under:-

8,16,000 X 40%= 3,26,400

[2025:RJ-JD:24242] (7 of 8) [CMA-915/2004]

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also prayed for

compensation under the head of loss of consortium, loss of estate

and funeral expenses. Under the abovementioned head,

Rs.20,000/- has been granted as a combined consortium for all

the dependents and Rs. 4,000/- has been awarded as funeral

expenses by the learned Tribunal. After elaborate consideration to

the various factors under which compensation is to be granted and

the reasonable figures on conventional heads, the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of "National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay

Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680" in para 59.8 has held as

under:-

Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.

14. The judgment in above mentioned case was pronounced in

the year 2017 and as far as conventional head is concerned, there

is a specific direction that the amount as mentioned in the

judgment (i.e. Rs.15,000 for loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- as loss of

consortium and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses) is required to

be enhanced @10% in every 3 years. Thus, the figures above

mentioned are required to be enhanced in every 3 years. While

taking guidance from the same, the loss of estate to be awarded

to the claimant would come to Rs.18,000/-, funeral expenses

would again work out to Rs.18,000/- and as far as loss of

consortium is concerned, the same would come out to be

Rs.48,000/- per claimant. Thus, in total, the amount under the

[2025:RJ-JD:24242] (8 of 8) [CMA-915/2004]

head of loss of consortium should be 48,000 X 9 = 4,32,000.

This, of course, would be subject to adjusting the amount of

Rs.20,000/- as far as loss of consortium and Rs.4,000/- under the

head of funeral expenses as granted by the learned Tribunal.

15. Thus, the award in question is modified accordingly and the

total sum for which the claimant is entitled is worked out as

under:-

Calculation of Award under MACT Compensation 4000 X 12 X 17= 8,16,000 Future Prospects (40%) 40% of 8,16,000= 3,26,400 Loss of consortium 48,000 x 9 (9 claimants)= 4,32,000 Loss of estate 18,000 Funeral expenses 18,000 Amount already awarded -2,70,000 (including loss of consortium and funeral expenses) Enhanced Award 13,40,400

16. It is thus held that the appellants are entitled for enhanced

compensation to the tune of Rs.13,40,400/- over and above, what

has been awarded by the learned Tribunal by way of award

impugned. It is further directed that the appellants shall be

entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the

claim petition (i.e., 24.01.2003) upon the enhanced amount till

the date of its realization. The award impugned is thus modified

accordingly, while enhancing the amount of compensation. The

appeal is thus disposed of in terms of the enhancement as

specified above.

17. Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.

(SANDEEP SHAH),J 38-mohit/-