Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Parthu vs Abhey Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:23949) on 9 May, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:23949]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                            JODHPUR
              S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 553/2002

      1. Parthu son of Shri Dhokal Gadri, resident of Satkhanda,
      Teh. Nimbahera, Dist. Chittorgarh.
  2. Kesar Bai wife of Ghasiram Gadri
  3. Guddi D/o Ghasiram Gadri
  4. Sunita D/o Ghasiram Gadri
  5. Madhu D/o Ghasiram Gadri
  6. Udai Lal S/o Ghasiram Gadri
       3 to 6 are minors through natural guardian mother Smt.
Kesar Bai wife of Ghasiram Gadri,
       All are resident of Satkhanda, Teh. Nimbahera, Dist.
Chittorgarh.
                                                  ----Appellants
                              Versus
  1. Abhey Singh son of Vijay Singh Chouhan, resident of
      Thawala, Teh. Mavli, Dist. Udaipur.
  2. Laxman Singh son of Lal Singh Rajput, resident of
      Changeri, Teh. Mavli, Dist. Udaipur.
  3. Devi Lal son of Ram Lal Jat, resident of Thawala, Teh.
      Mavli, Dist. Udaipur.
                                               ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Nayab Khan for
                                Mr. Manish Pitaliya
For Respondent(s)         :     ---



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

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

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,

Chittorgarh, in MAC case No.448/2001 (Parthu & Ors. v. Abhay

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

23.04.2002, an amount of Rs.2,39,000/- along with interest @9%

per annum (from the date of filing of the application

i.e., 09.02.2000) was awarded in favour of the claimants.

[2025:RJ-JD:23949] (2 of 7) [CMA-553/2002]

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

are that on 03.07.1999, at night around 10.15 p.m., the deceased

Ghasiram Gadri was travelling in mini truck 407, bearing

No.RJ-27Z-2065 from his village Sitaram Ka Khera to Mavli for the

sale of fodder. The truck in question was being driven by Abhay

Singh, the driver (respondent no.1) and was in ownership of

Laxman Singh and Devi Lal (respondent nos.2 & 3). It was further

stated that the mini truck was driven rashly and negligently by the

driver, due to which it turned turtle on Chittorgarh-Udaipur

highway road near Bhopalsagar, and Ghasiram suffered injuries

and ultimately succumbed to the same. It was further stated that

qua the incident in question, F.I.R. No.203/99 was lodged at Police

Station, Aakola, wherein a charge-sheet was filed against the

driver. The claimants thus prayed for grant of compensation to the

tune of Rs.23,70,000/- while stating that the claimants are the

father, mother, wife and children of the deceased and all of them

were dependant upon the income of the deceased.

3. The learned Tribunal issued notices to the respondents.

However, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent no.3, Devi

Lal, before the learned Tribunal. Consequently, ex-parte

proceedings were initiated against him, vide order dated

27.06.2001 passed by the learned Tribunal. Even on behalf of

respondent nos. 1 & 2 (i.e., Abhay Singh and Laxman Singh), no

reply was filed and thereafter the right to file reply was closed vide

order dated 26.03.2002. The learned Tribunal thereafter

proceeded to adjudicate the matter, and again, the respondent

nos. 2 and 3 did not appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal

thereafter passed an award to the tune of Rs.2,39,000/- while

[2025:RJ-JD:23949] (3 of 7) [CMA-553/2002]

treating the monthly income of the deceased Ghasiram as

Rs.1,500/- per month. The Tribunal applied the relevant factor of

17 while calculating the compensation and deducted 1/3 rd amount

under the head of personal expenses from the income while

adjudicating the compensation.

4. Being aggrieved against the same, the appeal in question

was filed, wherein this Hon'ble Court had issued notices to the

respondents. However, in spite of service, no one appeared for the

respondents. The appeal in question was admitted on 01.04.2003,

and post that again vide order dated 18.09.2003, a report was

made confirming that service upon respondent nos.1 and 2 was

complete. Herculean efforts were made for getting the service

completed upon the respondent no.3 from 14.02.2005 till

20.07.2012. Subsequently, upon an application to dispense with

the service of respondent no.3, the service upon the respondent

was dispensed with vide order dated 23.08.2012, while taking into

consideration the fact that the owner had already been served and

that ex-parte proceedings had been undertaken against

respondent No.3 before the learned Tribunal also.

5. While arguing, the learned counsel for the appellant has not

raised any dispute with regard to the income of Rs.1,500/- per

month as determined by the Tribunal. However, he has submitted

that the deduction made was incorrect, since there were more

than six dependents, therefore, the deduction to be made from

the income should have been 1/5th rather than 1/3rd. He has

further submitted that the future prospects has not at all been

considered by the learned Tribunal as also the loss of consortium,

loss of estate and funeral expenses, as per the judgments passed

[2025:RJ-JD:23949] (4 of 7) [CMA-553/2002]

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi

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

"National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017)

16 SCC 680". The learned counsel for the appellant has thus

prayed for enhancement of the amount based upon the judgments

cited upon.

6. Having considered the arguments raised by the learned

counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the case, it is

evident that the deceased was 30 years of age at the time of his

death, as specified in his post-mortem report i.e., Exh.5 as also

the age considered by the learned Tribunal in Para 8 of its

judgment. As far as, the claim of the applicant qua the deduction

for personal expenses of the deceased are concerned, the Tribunal

has deducted 1/3rd and come to a figure of Rs.12,000/- per year,

while admitting the income of the appellant as Rs.1,500/- per

month. 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:23949] (5 of 7) [CMA-553/2002]

7. 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:1,500-1/5th (300)= 1,200

Compensation =1,200 X 12 X 17= 2,44,800 was to be awarded.

8. 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.

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

employee but was self-employed and was 30 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:-

2,44,800 X 40%= 97,920

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also prayed for

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

[2025:RJ-JD:23949] (6 of 7) [CMA-553/2002]

and funeral expenses. Under the abovementioned head,

Rs.25,000/- has been granted as a combined consortium for all

the dependents and Rs. 10,000/- 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.

11. The judgment in abovementioned 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

abovementioned 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

head of loss of consortium should be 48,000 X 7 = 3,36,000.

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

[2025:RJ-JD:23949] (7 of 7) [CMA-553/2002]

Rs.25,000/- as far as loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- under

the head of funeral expenses as granted by the learned Tribunal.

12. 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 Compensation 1200 X 12 X 17= 2,44,800 Future Prospects (40%) 40% of 2,44,800 = 97,920 Loss of consortium 48,000 X 6 (6 claimants) = 2,88,000 Loss of estate 18,000 Funeral expenses 18,000 Amount already awarded -2,39,000 (including loss of consortium and funeral expenses) Enhanced Award = 4,27,720/-

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

compensation to the tune of Rs.4,27,720/- 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., 09.02.2000) upon the enhanced amount till

the date of its realisation. 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.

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

(SANDEEP SHAH),J 26-Love/-