Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Imrati Devi vs Nattha Ram (2025:Rj-Jd:42439) on 23 September, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:42439]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3011/2018
1. Smt. Imrati Devi W/o Late Shri Dhala Ram, Aged About
46 Years, B/c Mali Sankhla, R/o Village Kui Inda, Khadiya
Bera, Balesar, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur
(Rajasthan)
2. Smt. Bidami W/o Binja Ram, Aged About 28 Years, D/o
Late Shri Dhala Ram, R/o Village Belwa, Khatriyo Ka Bas
Balesar, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur.
3. Mohan Ram S/o Late Shri Dhala Ram, Aged About 26
Years, B/c Mali Sankhla, R/o Village Kui Inda, Khadiya
Bera, Balesar, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur
(Rajasthan)
4. Kumari Sita D/o Late Shri Dhala Ram, Aged About 21
Years, B/c Mali Sankhla, R/o Village Kui Inda, Khadiya
Bera, Balesar, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur
(Rajasthan)
5. Kumari Mamta D/o Late Shri Dhala Ram, Aged About 11
Years, Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt.
Imrati Devi W/o Late Shri Dhala Ram. B/c Mali Sankhla,
R/o Village Kui Inda, Khadiya Bera, Balesar, Tehsil
Shergarh, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
6. Smt. Jhamku Devi W/o Shri Jiya Ram, Aged About 84
Years, B/c Mali Sankhla, R/o Village Kui Inda, Khadiya
Bera, Balesar, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur
(Rajasthan)
----Appellants
Versus
1. Nattha Ram S/o Shri Mohan Ram, B/c Damami, R/o
Village Hapasar, Tehsil Shergarh, District
Jodhpur(Rajasthan) (Driver Bolero Car No. Rj34 Ua 0794)
2. Barkat Khan S/o Akhe Mohammed, B/c Musalman, R/o
Balesar Satta, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur
(Rajasthan) (Purchaser - Owner Bolero Car No. Rj34 Ua
0794)
3. Parbat Singh S/o Panney Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Village
Jaitsar, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur(Rajasthan)
(Regiestered Owner Bolero Car No. Rj34 Ua 0794)
4. United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional
Manager, Divisional Office, Residency Road, Jodhpur. At
Present 1St Floor, 74-A, Bhati N Plaza, Main Pal Road,
Jodhpur. (Insurer Bolero Car No. Rj34 Ua 0794)

----Respondents

(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 05:15:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/09/2025 at 07:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42439] (2 of 12) [CMA-3011/2018]

For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.K. Sankhla
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil A Vyas

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Judgment

Reportable
23/09/2025
1. The present misc. appeal has been preferred by the

appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation

amount awarded vide Judgment and Award dated 23.07.2018

passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal First, Jodhpur (for

brevity 'learned Tribunal') in MAC Case No. 149/2014 (N.C.V. No.

1922/14).

2. The learned Tribunal quantified the compensation at

Rs.7,88,692/- in favour of the claimants, together with interest at

the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim

petition. The appellants, being dissatisfied with the quantum so

determined, have approached this Court.

3. Brief facts as pleaded in the claim petition are that on

09.01.2014, one Dhalaram was travelling from Balesar towards his

native village on his motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-19-SP-

4130. At about 1:00 P.M., near Shaheed Bhanwar Singh Choraha,

a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-34-UA-0794, driven in

a rash and negligent manner, rammed into the motorcycle from

behind. Dhalaram sustained grievous injuries and despite best

efforts, succumbed to the injuries. FIR No. 5/2014 came to be

registered at Police Station, Balesar. The offending vehicle, on the

(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 05:15:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/09/2025 at 07:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42439] (3 of 12) [CMA-3011/2018]

date of accident, was duly insured with respondent No. 4

Insurance Company.

4. The appellants-claimants are the dependents of deceased

Dhalaram. The learned Tribunal after framing the issues,

evaluating the evidence available on record, and after hearing

counsels for the parties, while assessing the monthly income of

the deceased to be Rs.4,914/-, awarded total compensation of

Rs.7,88,692/- (including interim compensation 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.4,607/-
future prospects (25%) and
deduction for personal and living
expenses (1/4th) in the monthly
income of Rs.4,914/-)
2. Loss of Income (as per the age of 4,607 x 12 x 13
the deceased i.e. 49 years, a =
multiplier of 13) Rs.7,18,692/-
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.7,88,692/-

5. Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @9% per annum

from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 19.06.2014.

6. The appellants-claimants have assailed the impugned award

primarily on two grounds:

(i) That the learned Tribunal erred in treating the deceased

to be an unskilled labour drawing Rs.4,914/- per month,

whereas material on record unmistakably disclosed that the

deceased was engaged in mining operations, held requisite

(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 05:15:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/09/2025 at 07:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42439] (4 of 12) [CMA-3011/2018]

statutory consents, owned heavy machinery such as a crane

and tractor, was paying Rs.35,170/- per month as EMI

towards crane loan, and was also engaged in agricultural

activities yielding not less than Rs.10,000/- per month. It is

thus contended that his monthly earnings were not less than

Rs.1,10,000/- and certainly not less than Rs.50,000/-.

(ii) That the learned Tribunal committed a significant error in

its adjudication by providing insufficient compensation qua

the conventional head of 'Consortium'.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-

Insurance Company, while supporting the impugned award in so

far as it pertained to the computation of income of the deceased,

contended that there was no cogent documentary evidence, such

as income-tax returns or other reliable financial records, available

on record to substantiate the assertion of a higher income of the

deceased. However, he could not refute the position of law

regarding the award of insufficient compensation qua conventional

head of 'Consortium'.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

9. Smt. Imarti Devi (AW-2), widow of the deceased, deposed

that her husband was actively engaged in mining operations; that

he owned a mine and had also taken another (owned by Smt.

Sushila Meethalal) on lease; that he was in possession of a crane

and tractor used for the said activities; and that he was

discharging substantial EMI of Rs.35,170/- per month towards a

crane loan. The statements of the said claimant stand

corroborated by documentary evidence- namely, the certificate of

(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 05:15:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/09/2025 at 07:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42439] (5 of 12) [CMA-3011/2018]

registration of crane (Exh.22A), loan statement issued by HDFC

Bank (Exh.23) and the bank passbook (Exh.24A). The statutory

consent orders (Exhs.17 & 19) issued by the Rajasthan State

Pollution Control Board further corroborate the fact that the

deceased was lawfully engaged in mining activities.

10. A perusal of Exhibits 17 and 19 reveals that the Rajasthan

State Pollution Control Board, Jodhpur had in the years 2011 and

2014 respectively, granted extensions of consent in favour of

deceased Dhalaram, thereby authorising him to lawfully carry on

mining operations. Such statutory consents definitely presuppose

not only the existence of mining rights but also requisite

infrastructure to operate the said mine.

11. True it is that the claimants have not placed on record the

Income Tax Returns or the audited financial statements to

conclusively establish the quantum of earnings from any mining

activity; or any formal lease deed or revenue document to

substantiate the assertion that one of the mines was taken on

lease from Smt. Sushila, however, the absence of such

documentation does not ipso facto negate the fact of the

deceased's engagement in mining activities. On the contrary, the

official consent orders issued by the statutory authority constitute

unimpeachable evidence that the deceased was actively carrying

on mining operations prior to the unfortunate accident. Equally

compelling is the evidence relating to the ownership and financing

of heavy machinery by the deceased. Exhibit 22A, the Certificate

of Registration of a crane (Hydra Mob Crane) stood in the name of

the deceased. Exhibit 23, the Vehicle Loan Statement issued by

(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 05:15:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/09/2025 at 07:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42439] (6 of 12) [CMA-3011/2018]

HDFC Bank Ltd., and Exhibit 24A, the Bank Passbook of the

deceased collectively reflect a repayment of Rs.35,170/- every

month as EMI for the crane. The bank record further reflects that

such payments were made right up till 21.12.2013, that is, till the

month before the fateful accident on 09.01.2014.

12. In view of the above documentary evidence, this Court is of

the considered opinion that the ability of an individual to repay

heavy loan instalments on a regular basis, presupposes the

existence of an income substantially higher than the liability

discharged. In the given facts, it would be wholly unrealistic to

assume that a person paying EMI exceeding Rs.35,000/- could

have been subsisting on a meagre income of Rs.4,914/- per

month. The financial outgo evidenced by the bank transactions

constitutes strong circumstantial proof of the deceased's earning

capacity. Consequently, this Court deems it proper to hold that the

deceased's monthly earnings were definitely higher than the EMI

payments, and the said fact ought to have been taken into

consideration while assessing the quantum of compensation.

13. In Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.;

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778, Hon'ble the Apex Court held that

where a deceased was regularly servicing a substantial loan

instalment, such fact constitutes reliable evidence of earning

capacity and the Courts ought not to resort blindly to minimum

wage notifications. The same ratio applies herein too. A man

discharging monthly EMI exceeding Rs.35,000/- while maintaining

a family of six could not possibly be earning a paltry Rs.4,914/-

(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 05:15:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/09/2025 at 07:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42439] (7 of 12) [CMA-3011/2018]

per month. In Gurpreet Kaur (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court

observed as under:

"8. Though, there is no evidence on record regarding
the income of deceased Pyara Singh, however, from
the testimony of P.W.4 - Amar Kumar, Assistant
Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, it is clear that
the deceased - Pyara Singh was regularly making the
payment of Rs.11,550/- as instalment to discharge his
loan liability towards the tractor. At this rate, the
entire loan was paid back within a year or so. That
clearly establishes the earning capacity of the
deceased. It is also the case of the appellants-
claimants that the deceased was working as a
contractor and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month.
The Tribunal adopted a balanced approach and
keeping in view factors like : (i) the payment of
monthly instalment of Rs.11,550/- towards loan of the
tractor; (ii) Maintaining a family comprising of wife,
two minor children and parents; (iii) Affording tractor
and motorcycle; (iv) that the deceased was working as
a contractor; assessed his income at Rs.25,000/- per
month.
9. In our considered view, the Tribunal's approach is
quite justified in law as well as on facts. In the
summary proceedings where the approach of the
Tribunal's determination must be in conformity with
the object of the welfare legislation, it was rightly held
that the monthly income of the deceased could not be
less than Rs.25,000/-. The reason assigned by the
High Court to reduce the monthly income of the
deceased is totally cryptic and has no rationale. The
Notification of Minimum Wages Act can be a
guiding factor only in a case where there is no
clue available to evaluate monthly income of the
deceased. Where positive evidence has been led,

(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 05:15:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/09/2025 at 07:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42439] (8 of 12) [CMA-3011/2018]

no reliance on the Notification could be placed,
particularly when it was nobody's case that the
deceased was a labourer as presumed by the
High Court."

14. With regard to agricultural income, AW-2 deposed that apart

from mining activities, her husband was also engaged in

agricultural activities and earned an additional income of

Rs.10,000/- per month. In corroboration, Jamabandi of an

agricultural land (Exhibit 26A) had been exhibited which clearly

reflects that the deceased owned 0.08 bighas of agricultural land

in joint ownership. As per the statements of AW-2, the land also

comprised of a tube well that was used for agriculture and

irrigation facilities.

15. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Shrikrishna vs

Surendra Singh and Ors.; First Appeal from Order No.83 of

2012 (decided on 25.03.2014) while determining the income of

an agriculturist observed as under:

"10. Much emphasis has been given by learned counsel
for the respondents that an agriculturalist cannot be
equated with a skilled labour. The argument advanced
by learned counsel for the respondents seems to be
misconceived. The profession of an agriculturalist
itself requires scientific knowledge in view of
recent development in the field. Knowledge,
ability and experience collectively requires for a
better production or outcome in the agriculture
work. Hence, an agriculturist cannot be equated with
unskilled labour.
16. In view of the dictionary meaning as well as the
interpretation given by Hon'ble Supreme Court keeping

(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 05:15:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/09/2025 at 07:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42439] (9 of 12) [CMA-3011/2018]

in view some statutory provisions, an agriculturist
cannot be treated as an unskilled labour. A
reasonable skill is required from him to discharge
his/her obligation for better output. Although the work
of an agriculturist may not have become highly
technical keeping in view every day scientific
development in the field, yet, in this scientific era, it
requires scientific decision for sowing and reaping the
crops and managing affairs upto the stage of sale of
food-grains in the markets. Hence, in the absence of
any proof of income from an agriculturist, his notional
income for the purpose of payment of compensation
may be treated at par with the income of a skilled
person."

16. Further, in the case of Rajinder Kaur vs. Ram Dass &

Ors.; FAO No. 4266 of 2012 (O&M) (decided on 18.03.2019),

the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while determining the income

of the deceased who was an agriculturist and also carried on the

business of transporter and milk dairy observed as under:

7. The next question, which arises for consideration is
with regard to income of the deceased. Rajinder Singh,
eyewitness of the accident, who appeared as PW1, has
stated that the deceased was in transport business and
also running a dairy farm besides being an agriculturist.
Rajinder Kaur wife of the deceased, who appeared as
PW2, had also deposed on the same terms. To
corroborate oral testimony, claimant has placed on file,
copy of the mutation Ex.P5, which shows that 1/5th
share of deceased in land measuring 130 kanals 12
marlas situated in village Uklana. However, no evidence
except the oral testimony regarding transport business
of the deceased, has come on record. A land owner
can be put in the category of skilled worker as he

(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 05:15:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/09/2025 at 07:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42439] (10 of 12) [CMA-3011/2018]

has not only to cultivate the land, but also to take
care of the other agricultural process like
irrigation, fertilisers, pesticides, crop cycle,
quality of seeds, nature of soil, type of crops to be
sown etc. In the year, 2008, the minimum wages for
skilled worker (upper) were Rs.3545/- per month, as
such, income of the deceased has been rightly assessed
by the tribunal as Rs.3,600/- per month and I find no
reason to interfere with the same."

17. The above judicial precedents consistently recognize that an

agriculturist cannot be treated at par with an unskilled labour as

his vocation entails application of knowledge and skill.

18. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, this Court is

of the considered and unambiguous opinion that the deceased's

monthly income must be assessed by synthesising several

streams of his livelihood. The record demonstrates that the

deceased had obtained consent letters from the statutory

authority for carrying out mining activities; that he was the

registered owner of a Hydra Mob Crane for which he was

punctually discharging monthly instalment of Rs.35,170/-; and

that he simultaneously held agricultural land capable of yielding

regular income. This Court, on taking all these factors

cumulatively, concludes that the deceased was earning no less

than an amount of Rs.45,000/- per month from his mining and

agricultural ventures. This conclusion stands reinforced by the

evidence of consistent payment of licence fees for the mines as

well as repayment of the EMI for the crane loan. Accordingly, this

Court deems it proper to assess the monthly income of the

(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 05:15:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/09/2025 at 07:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42439] (11 of 12) [CMA-3011/2018]

deceased at Rs.45,000/- for the purposes of computation of just

compensation.

19. 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 Limiteds. 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

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.

20. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the said amount

ought to be awarded to each of the appellants claimants. Thus,

appellant Nos. 2 to 6 being the children and mother of the

deceased, are also entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- each

under the head of 'Consortium'. So far as compensation awarded

to appellant No.1 under the head of 'Consortium' is concerned, the

same has been rightly awarded and does not deserve any

interference.

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

impugned judgment/award dated 23.07.2018 passed by Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal First, Jodhpur in MAC Case No. 149/2014

(N.C.V. No. 1922/2014) is modified to the extent that the

appellants-claimants shall be entitled to the following

compensation:

(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 05:15:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/09/2025 at 07:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42439] (12 of 12) [CMA-3011/2018]

1. Income per month (after addition Rs.42,188/-
of future prospects (25%) and
deduction for personal and living
expenses (1/4th) in the monthly
income of Rs.45,000/-)
2. Loss of Income (as per the age of 42,188 x 12 x 13
the deceased i.e. 49 years, a =
multiplier of 13) Rs.65,81,328/-
3. Under the head of 'Consortium' 40,000 x 6 =
Rs.2,40,000/-
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.68,51,328/-
7. Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs.7,88,692/-
8. Enhanced amount of Rs.68,51,328/-
compensation - Rs.7,88,692/-
-------------

Rs.60,62,636/-

22. 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.

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