Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Laxmi vs Roopa Ram (2025:Rj-Jd:43689) on 6 October, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:43689]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3602/2018

1.       Smt. Laxmi W/o Late Shri Bhera Ram @ Sumer, Aged
         About 25 Years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Bambor, Tehsil And
         District Jodhpur.
2.       Yuvraj S/o Late Shri Bhera Ram @ Sumer, Aged About 6
         Years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Bambor, Tehsil And District
         Jodhpur. (Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother
         Smt. Laxmi W/o Late Shri Bhera Ram @ Sumer)
3.       Khiya Ram S/o Late Shri Joga Ram, Aged About 58 Years,
         B/c Meghwal, R/o Bambor, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
4.       Smt. Chuki Devi W/o Shri Khiya Ram, Aged About 56
         Years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Bambor, Tehsil And District
         Jodhpur.
         Appellant-claimant No.2 is minor through her natural
         guardian mother Smt. Laxmi w/o late Shri Bhera Ram @
         Sumer.
                                                                   ----Appellants
                                    Versus
1.       Roopa Ram S/o Shri Rewant Ram, B/c Meghwal, R/o
         Village Sekhala, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur. (Driver
         Alto Car No. RJ19 CD 2143)
2.       Madan Singh S/o Shri Chain Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o
         Village Ketu Kala, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur
         (Registered Alto Car No. RJ19 CD 2143)
3.       Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.,
         Through Divisional Office, Sundram Tower, 46 Whites
         Road, Royapethah, Chennai 600014(Insurer Alto Car No.
         RJ19 CD 2143)
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Santosh Kumar Sankhla
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Dhanpat Choudhary



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                     Order

06/10/2025

1.    The present misc. appeal has been preferred by the

appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation

amount awarded vide Judgment and Award dated 31.08.2018



                      (Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:54:09 PM)
                     (Downloaded on 06/10/2025 at 09:39:19 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:43689]                     (2 of 8)                     [CMA-3602/2018]


passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan in

MAC Case No. 210/2014 (2389/2014).

      The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment/award dated

31.08.2018, awarded a sum of Rs.10,73,968/- (including an

interim relief of Rs.50,000/-) in favour of the claimants, alongwith

interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim

petition.

2.    Brief facts as per the claim petition are that on 09.06.2013,

Bhera Ram alias Sumer and his brother-in-law Kalu Ram were

going from Sangaria to Bambor on motorcycle bearing registration

No. RJ-19-AS-1087. At around 7:40 pm, when they reached

towards Pal Choraha, Jodhpur, an Alto car bearing registration No.

RJ-19-CD-2143, being driven rashly and negligently on wrong side

of the road, hit the motorcycle. Both Bhera Ram and Kalu Ram

suffered grievous injuries and Bhera Ram succumbed to the

injuries. FIR No. 167/13 pertaining to the said accident was lodged

at Police Station - Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.

3.    The offending vehicle, on the date of the accident, was

insured with respondent No. 3 Insurance Company.

4.    The appellants-claimants being the wife, minor son and

parents     of   the   deceased,        claiming       themselves    to   be   the

dependents of Bhera Ram filed the claim petition. The learned

Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available

on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, while

assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.4,980/-,

awarded total compensation of Rs.10,73,968/- (including interim




                        (Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:54:09 PM)
                       (Downloaded on 06/10/2025 at 09:39:19 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:43689]                      (3 of 8)                       [CMA-3602/2018]


relief of Rs.50,000/-) in favour of the appellants-claimants, the

breakup of which is as under:


     1.        Income per month (after addition of Rs.4,648/-
               future     prospects          (40%)          and
               deduction for personal and living
               expenses (1/3rd) in the monthly
               income of Rs.4,980/-)
     2.        Loss of Income (as per the age of 4,648 x 12 x 18
               the   deceased        i.e.   25     years,       a =
               multiplier of 18)                                    Rs.10,03,968/-
     3.        Under the head of 'Consortium'                       Rs.40,000/-
     4.        Under     the      head        of      'Funeral Rs.15,000/-
               Expenses'
     5.        Under the head of 'Loss of Estate                    Rs.15,000/-
     6.        Total amount of compensation                         Rs.10,73,968/-

          Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @6% per annum

from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 07.03.2014.

5.        Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants raised the

following grounds:

i.        The learned Tribunal erroneously computed the income of

the deceased at the rate of Rs.4,980/- per month based on the

minimum wages for an unskilled labour, whereas it was proved on

record that the deceased was engaged as a 'Khandwalia' (a

labourer involved in the work of excavating and breaking stones

from a quarry) and earning an income of Rs.15,000/- per month.

In support of his submission counsel relied upon the Apex Court

judgment in the case of Karamjit Kaur & Ors. vs. Royal

Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. and Ors.; Civil Appeal No.

3545 of 2023 (decided on 09.05.2023) wherein it was



                         (Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:54:09 PM)
                        (Downloaded on 06/10/2025 at 09:39:19 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:43689]                   (4 of 8)                    [CMA-3602/2018]


observed that though the minimum income provided under the

notification is statutorily payable, in reality it can be more.

ii.    The learned Tribunal erroneously held the father of the

deceased not to be a 'dependant' whereas it was proved on record

that he was paralysed since years and was not earning.

iii.   The learned Tribunal while holding the father of the deceased

not to be a dependant, erroneously deducted 1/3 of the income

qua personal expenses whereas considering the number of

dependants i.e. four, it ought to be 1/4.

iv.    The learned Tribunal committed a significant error in its

adjudication by providing insufficient compensation qua the

conventional head of 'Consortium'.

6.     Per contra learned counsel for the respondent Insurance

Company submitted that the driver of the insured vehicle was not

holding a valid and effective license and therefore, it was a clear

case of breach of the policy conditions and of the provisions of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurance company was therefore

not liable to pay the compensation. Further, the FIR was lodged

with delay and hence the fact of accident itself was doubtful.

7.     Counsel submitted that the computation of income and

deduction qua personal expenses was totally in consonance with

the material available on record as no documentary evidence qua

the income of the deceased was led by the claimants.

8.     So far as the ground of the father of the deceased being a

dependant is concerned, counsel while relying upon the Apex

Court judgment in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport




                      (Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:54:09 PM)
                     (Downloaded on 06/10/2025 at 09:39:19 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:43689]                     (5 of 8)                        [CMA-3602/2018]


Corporation and Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121 submitted that a

father cannot be considered to be a dependant.

9.    However, learned counsel could not refute the position of law

regarding    the     award      of    insufficient      compensation        qua   the

conventional head of 'Consortium'.

10.   Heard learned counsels. Perused the material available on

record.

11.   Smt. Laxmi (AW-1), the wife of the deceased, specifically

deposed that her husband was engaged as a quarry labour and

was earning an income of Rs.15,000/- per month. True it is that

no document to substantiate the said income has been placed on

record, but then as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Ramachandrappa            vs.        The    Manager,           Royal     Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Company; (2011) 13 SCC 236, the LRs of

a labourer cannot be expected to produce any documentary

evidence to substantiate the claim qua the income of the

deceased. Therein, the Court observed that in all cases and in all

circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the

claimants in absence of supporting material, but the same

depends on the facts of each case. The Tribunal although may not

accept the complete claim as raised, but then it may proceed to

determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work

which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant

point of time. Therein Hon'ble the Apex Court computed the

income of a quarry worker to be Rs.5,500/- per month.

12.   Applying the above ratio to the present matter, herein the

deceased was a young and healthy individual of 25 years of age

                        (Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:54:09 PM)
                       (Downloaded on 06/10/2025 at 09:39:19 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:43689]                   (6 of 8)                    [CMA-3602/2018]


and definitely had a future full of opportunities to progress in life.

This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that he was the sole bread

earner of the family as it is proved on record, his father was

paralyzed since years and was not earning. The deceased left

behind the aged and ailing parents as well as a minor son of two

years.

13.   Keeping into consideration the overall facts, this Court deems

it appropriate to assess the monthly income of the deceased

equivalent to that of a skilled labour. As per the Government

Notification, the minimum wages prescribed for a skilled labour as

on 01.05.2013 was Rs.186/- per day which makes the monthly

income to be Rs.5,580/-

14.   Coming on to the deduction of income qua personal

expenses, the statement of AW-1 remains controverted and hence

there is no reason to disbelieve the said statement of the witness.

Keeping into consideration the fact that the father of the deceased

was not having his own income, he being paralyzed, the ratio of

Sarla Verma (supra), to the said extent, would not apply to the

present matter. The father of the deceased is therefore held to be

a 'dependant' and the deduction qua personal expenses therefore,

sought to be 1/4th of the income.

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

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

case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay

Sethi and Ors,; (2017) 16 SCC 680 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

                      (Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:54:09 PM)
                     (Downloaded on 06/10/2025 at 09:39:19 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:43689]                   (7 of 8)                       [CMA-3602/2018]


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 shall be awarded to

each of the appellants-claimants.

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

impugned judgment/award dated 31.08.2018 passed by Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan in MAC Case No.

210/2014 (2389/14) is modified to the extent that the appellants-

claimants shall be entitled to the following compensation:


  1.         Income per month (after addition of                 Rs.5,859/-
             future     prospects  (40%)      and
             deduction for personal and living
             expenses (1/4th) in the monthly
             income of Rs.5,580/-)
  2.         Loss of Annual Income (as per the                   5,859 x 12 x 18
             age of 25 years of the deceased,                    Rs.12,65,544/-
             multiplier of 18).
  3.         Under the head of 'consortium'                      Rs.1,60,000/-
             (40,000 x 4)
  4.         Under     the   head   of   'Funeral                Rs.15,000/-
             expenses' (As awarded by Tribunal)
  5.         Under the head of 'Loss of                          Rs.15,000/-
             Estate' (As awarded by Tribunal)
  6.         Total amount of compensation                        Rs.14,55,544/-
  7.         Amount awarded by Tribunal                          Rs. 10,73,968/-
  8.         Enhanced amount of compensation                        Rs.14,55,544/-
                                                                 (-)Rs.10,73,968/-
                                                                 ------------------

Rs.3,81,576/-

17. 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

(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:54:09 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:43689] (8 of 8) [CMA-3602/2018]

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