Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramesh Kumar vs Baj Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:42443) on 23 September, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:42443]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 228/2022
1. Ramesh Kumar S/o Jairooparam, Aged About 48 Years,
Village Dudawa Ka Bera, Sire Mandir Road, Jalore
2. Shilpa D/o Ramesh Kumar, Aged About 23 Years, Village
Dudawa Ka Bera, Sire Mandir Road, Jalore
3. Praveen S/o Ramesh Kumar, Aged About 21 Years, Village
Dudawa Ka Bera, Sire Mandir Road, Jalore
4. Neelam @ Nenu D/o Ramesh Kumar, Aged About 20
Years, Village Dudawa Ka Bera, Sire Mandir Road, Jalore
----Appellants
Versus
1. Baj Singh S/o Sainsingh, H-140-A, Dolewala Mogha, Ward
No. 43, Hanuman Garh, Rajasthan
2. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., Narayanam, IInd Floor,
178, Upper Chopasni Road, Bombay Motor Circle, Jodhpur
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1144/2021
1. Jhammu Devi W/o Suresh, Aged About 31 Years, Village
Dudawa Ka Bera, Sire Mandir Road, Jalore
2. Sonu D/o Suresh, Aged About 9 Years, Village Dudawa Ka
Bera, Sire Mandir Road, Jalore
3. Priyanshi D/o Suresh, Aged About 8 Years, Village
Dudawa Ka Bera, Sire Mandir Road, Jalore
4. Mukesh S/o Suresh, Aged About 6 Years, Village Dudawa
Ka Bera, Sire Mandir Road, Jalore
5. Margi Devi W/o Naina Ram, Aged About 66 Years, Village
Dudawa Ka Bera, Sire Mandir Road, Jalore
----Appellants
Versus
1. Baj Singh S/o Sainsingh, H-140-A, Dolewala Mogha, Ward
No. 43, Hanuman Garh
2. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., Narayanam, IInd Floor,
178, Upper Chopasni Road, Bombay Motor Circle, Jodhpur
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:14:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42443] (2 of 21) [CMA-228/2022]
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1145/2021
1. Nibesh S/o Bhagwanaram, Aged About 24 Years, Village
Dudawa Ka Bera, Sire Mandir Road, Jalore
2. Yash S/o Bhagwanaram, Aged About 18 Years, Village
Dudawa Ka Bera, Sire Mandir Road, Jalore
3. Himmta Ram, Village Dudawa Ka Bera, Sire Mandir Road,
Jalore
4. Chandna @ Sadna Devi W/o Himmata Ram, Aged About
74 Years, Village Dudawa Ka Bera, Sire Mandir Road,
Jalore
----Appellants
Versus
1. Baj Singh S/o Sainsingh, H-140-A, Dolewala Mogha, Ward
No. 43, Hanuman Garh
2. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., Narayanam, IInd Floor,
178, Upper Chopasni Road, Bombay Motor Circle, Jodhpur
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1146/2021
1. Nibesh S/o Bhagwanaram, Aged About 24 Years, Village
Dudawa Ka Bera, Sire Mandir Road, Jalore
2. Yash S/o Bhagwanaram, Aged About 18 Years, Village
Dudawa Ka Bera, Sire Mandir Road, Jalore
3. Himmta Ram, Village Dudawa Ka Bera, Sire Mandir Road,
Jalore
4. Chandna @ Sadna Devi W/o Himmata Ram, Aged About
74 Years, Village Dudawa Ka Bera, Sire Mandir Road,
Jalore
----Appellants
Versus
1. Baj Singh S/o Sainsingh, H-140-A, Dolewala Mogha, Ward
No. 43, Hanuman Garh
2. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., Narayanam, IInd Floor,
178, Upper Chopasni Road, Bombay Motor Circle, Jodhpur
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1147/2021
1. Nibesh S/o Bhagwanaram, Aged About 24 Years, Village
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:14:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42443] (3 of 21) [CMA-228/2022]
Dudawa Ka Bera, Sire Mandir Road, Jalore
2. Yash S/o Bhagwanaram, Aged About 18 Years, Village
Dudawa Ka Bera, Sire Mandir Road, Jalore
3. Himmta Ram, Village Dudawa Ka Bera, Sire Mandir Road,
Jalore
4. Chandna @ Sadna Devi W/o Himmata Ram, Aged About
74 Years, Village Dudawa Ka Bera, Sire Mandir Road,
Jalore
----Appellants
Versus
1. Baj Singh S/o Sainsingh, H-140-A, Dolewala Mogha, Ward
No. 43, Hanuman Garh
2. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., Narayanam IInd Floor,
178, Upper Chopasni Road, Bombay Motor Circle, Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akshay Chandra Tiwari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Singhi
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Judgment
23/09/2025
1. The present appeals have been filed against the impugned
judgment and award dated 01.10.2021 passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal First, Jodhpur in Motor Accident Claim Case
Nos.242/2015, 238/2015, 241/2015, 239/2015 and 240/2015
whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions
and passed an award in favour of the respective claimants therein.
2. These appeals, though arising from distinct claim petitions,
are interwoven in facts, law, and evidence. All the appeals arise
from a common judgment and award and hence, are decided by
this common judgment.
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:14:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42443] (4 of 21) [CMA-228/2022]
3. Facts as pleaded in the claim petitions are that on
06.06.2015, Suresh, Prashant (a minor child), Bhagwanaram
(driver), his wife Smt. Jhammu Devi and Smt. Santosh Devi
commenced their journey from Jalore to the sacred shrine of Shri
Ramdevra in vehicle No.RJ-24-CA-1716, driven by Bhagwanaram.
At about 3:15 a.m. on 07.06.2015, while traversing the Bus
Station of Bhungra Village, a truck bearing registration No. RJ-19-
1G-9090, driven recklessly and negligently, rammed into their
vehicle. The collision was devastating and every occupant of the
car succumbed to the fatal injuries. FIR No. 80/2015 was
registered at Police Station Shergarh qua the accident.
4. The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was insured
with respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 228/2022 (Claim Petition
No.242/2015)
1. The grievance of the appellants, being the heirs of late Smt.
Santosh, is twofold:
(i) The Tribunal erred in computing her income on the footing of
a semi-skilled worker though she was a vegetable vendor earning
Rs.10,000/- per month; and
(ii) The Tribunal wrongly imposed a deduction of 40% on
account of contributory negligence of the driver, which cannot be
fastened upon an occupant of a vehicle.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that deceased
Smt. Santosh was travelling as an occupant in the vehicle in
question and hence, due to the alleged negligence of the driver,
claimants of deceased occupant cannot be made to suffer.
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:14:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42443] (5 of 21) [CMA-228/2022]
3. Heard learned counsels and perused the record.
4. So far as the ground pertaining to the income of the
deceased is concerned, it is manifest that no documentary
evidence has been adduced on record to substantiate the
averment regarding income. The only material exhibited is a
certificate issued by the Mali Samaj Navyuvak Mandal (Exhibit-19)
which merely records that the deceased was allotted a place by
the said association as a vegetable vendor. Such a certificate,
neither issued by any statutory authority nor supported by
corroborative financial records, cannot be considered to be a
reliable evidence of actual income.
5. This Court finds no infirmity in the approach of the learned
Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased on basis of the
minimum wages notified for a semi-skilled worker prevailing at the
relevant time and hence, the same needs no modification.
6. Coming on to the second ground raised regarding deduction
of award amount qua contributory negligence, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in a recent judgment passed in the case of Sushma Vs.
Nitin Ganapati Rangole & Ors.; AIR 2024 SC 4627 while
relying upon the earlier judgment passed in Union of India Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; (1997) 8 SCC 683 held as
under:
"17. In addition, we hold that the finding of the Courts
below, which reduced the claims of the legal heirs of the
deceased and the injured, other than the legal heirs of
the driver-Saiprasad Karande (deceased) is also invalid
in the eyes of law. The Courts below uniformly applied
the principle of contributory negligence while directing
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:14:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42443] (6 of 21) [CMA-228/2022]
deduction from the compensation awarded to the
respective appellant-claimants, i.e. the dependents of
passengers and the injured as well as the dependents of
the driver-Saiprasad Karande @ 50%. Thus, the
contributory negligence of the driver of the car was
vicariously applied to the passengers which is prima
facie illegal and impermissible.
.....................
19. It is clear from the ratio of the above judgment that
the contributory negligence on the part of a driver
of the vehicle involved in the accident cannot be
vicariously attached to the passengers so as to
reduce the compensation awarded to the
passengers or their legal heirs as the case may be.
20. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the
Courts below committed gross error in law while
reducing the compensation awarded to the appellant-
claimants, being the dependents of the deceased-
passengers and Smt. Sushma as the claims of these
claimants cannot be truncated by attaching the vicarious
liability with the driver. However, the claim of the
dependents of the deceased driver Saiprasad Karande
would stand on a different footing."
7. In view of the above ratio, this Court is of the opinion that
the learned Tribunal erred in deducting amount qua contributory
negligence @40% from total compensation amount of
Rs.12,07,180/-.
8. No other ground has been raised by learned counsel for the
appellants.
9. In view of the above observations, the present appeal is
partly allowed and the impugned judgment/award dated
01.10.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal First,
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42443] (7 of 21) [CMA-228/2022]
Jodhpur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.242/2015 is modified to
the extent that the appellant-claimants shall be entitled to the
complete amount of compensation i.e. Rs.12,07,180/- as awarded
by the learned Tribunal.
10. The 40% of unpaid award amount which is to be paid now
shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till the date of actual payment.
11. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the award amount (if not deposited yet) 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.
12. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1144/2021 (Claim Petition
No.238/2015)
1. The appellants contend that deceased Suresh, proprietor of
M/s Sundha Service Centre, was a skilled mechanic yet the
Tribunal confined his income to that of a semi-skilled worker. It is
urged that acknowledgment of the District Industries Centre stood
exhibited and testimony of AW-1 corroborated the deceased's
avocation.
2. The second grievance, as in other appeals, is regarding
deduction of 40% award amount on account of contributory
negligence.
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42443] (8 of 21) [CMA-228/2022]
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company
submitted that learned Tribunal rightly considered wages of a
semi-skilled worker as there was no document available on record
to reflect the income earned by the deceased while working as a
mechanic.
4. Heard learned counsels and perused the record.
5. A perusal of the record reflects that in the claim petition, it
was specifically pleaded that the deceased was the proprietor of a
mechanic workshop under the name and style of M/s Sundha
Service Center, from which he was stated to be deriving a monthly
income of ₹25,000/-. In corroboration thereof, the
acknowledgment issued by the District Industries Centre, Jalore
(Ex.13A) reflecting the deceased to be the proprietor of M/s
Sundha Service Center, Jalore was got exhibited. AW-1 Margi
Devi, the mother of the deceased deposed that her son indeed
owned the aforesaid service centre and was earning approximately
₹30,000/- per month from the said enterprise.
6. True it is that no documentary evidence has been led to
substantiate the precise quantum of income as asserted; however,
it is equally significant that the factum of the deceased being the
proprietor of a service centre has not been disputed or
controverted by the respondents. Being a proprietor of service
center definitely would presuppose certain other mechanics
working under the supervision of the owner/proprietor of the
service center. Meaning thereby, the deceased who was running a
service center was definitely having an experience and expertise
so as to supervise the work of the complete service center.
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42443] (9 of 21) [CMA-228/2022]
7. In such circumstances, this Court considers it just and proper
to assess the income of the deceased on basis of the minimum
wages notified for a highly skilled labour. As per the Government
Notification in force on 01.01.2015, the minimum wage prescribed
for a skilled labourer stood at Rs.267/- per day, which, when
computed on a monthly basis, aggregates to Rs.8,010/-.
8. So far as the second ground raised qua deduction of
contributory negligence from the total award amount is concerned,
the issue has already been dealt with and decided by this Court in
the preceding paras while deciding CMA No.228/2022. The same
conclusion would apply herein too and it is held that the learned
Tribunal erred in deducting 40% of the award amount qua
contributory negligence.
9. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed and the
impugned judgment/award 01.10.2021 passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal First, Jodhpur in Motor Accident Claim Case
No.238/2015 is modified to the extent that the appellants-
claimants shall be entitled to the following compensation:
1. Income per month (after addition of Rs.8,410/-
future prospects (40%) and
deduction for personal and living
expenses (1/4) in the monthly
income of Rs.8,010/-)
2. Loss of Income (as per the age of 8,410 x12x17=
the deceased i.e. 28 years, a
Rs.17,15,640/-
multiplier of 17)
3. Under the head of 'Consortium' 40,000 x 5 =
Rs.2,00,000/-
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.19,45,640/-
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42443] (10 of 21) [CMA-228/2022]
7. Amount awarded by Tribunal/Court Rs.8,29,682/-
8. Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.19,45,640/-
- Rs.8,29,682/-
-------------------
Rs.11,15,958/-
11. The enhanced amount as well as 40% of the unpaid award
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 appellants-claimants in terms
of the award.
12. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1145/2021(Claim Petition
No.241/2015) (driver deceased)
1. Counsel for the appellant-claimants limited his arguments on
the sole ground that the learned Tribunal has gravely erred in
attributing contributory negligence of deceased Bhagwanaram, in
relation to the accident in question.
2. Counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that
the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is wholly perverse
being in stark contradiction to the evidence available on record
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42443] (11 of 21) [CMA-228/2022]
and is therefore unsustainable in the eyes of law. Reliance is
placed upon the testimony of eye witness AW-5 Banshilal who
unequivocally deposed that the deceased was driving in his correct
lane and the accident occasioned solely due to the rash and
negligent driving of the truck driver. It is further canvassed that
no suggestion, whatsoever, was put to the said witness in his
cross-examination, imputing negligence to the deceased;
consequently, the version of the eye-witness remained wholly
unshaken and unimpeached. In such circumstance, the learned
Tribunal manifestly erred in law and on facts in deducting the
award amount by 40% on the purported ground of contributory
negligence attributable to the deceased.
3. In support of his submission, counsel relied upon the
judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Ranjeet Singh & Anr. Vs. Manish Kumar & Anr.; (2024) 1
DNJ 112.
4. Heard the counsels and perused the record.
5. What emerges from the record is that the eye-witness AW-5
Banshilal, as also the deceased driver, admittedly hailed from the
same village. In his cross-examination, AW-5 acknowledged that
the accident was the result of a head on collision between the car
and the truck. He further deposed that immediately upon the
occurrence, the driver of the offending truck absconded from the
spot, thereby evading responsibility. The witness, however,
emphatically repudiated the police statements (Ex.NA-1)
purportedly recorded in his name.
6. AW-5, in his cross-examination, deposed as under:
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42443] (12 of 21) [CMA-228/2022]
"Hkxokukjke esjk dksbZ fj"rsnkj ugha gSA esjs xkWo dk gSA ;g
dguk lgh gS fd e`rd vkSj eSa ,d gh tkfr ds gSA?kVukLFky
ij fMokbZMj ugha FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd VDdj vkeus
lkeus gq;h FkhA vt[kqn dgk fd dkj viuh lkbZM esa py
jgh FkhA iqfyl dks eSaus Qksu fd;k FkkA iqfyl esa esjs c;ku
1&2 fnu ckn gq;s FksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd iqfyl ds cqykus
ij eSa ogkW c;ku nsus ds fy, x;k FkkA ?kVukLFky ij iqfyl
us iwNrkN ugha dh FkhA nq?kZVuk ds ckn Vªd pkyd Hkkx x;k
FkkA eSaus Vªd pkyd dks ugha idM+k FkkA eq>s Vªd pkyd
us ;g ugha dgk fd esjs ls ,DlhMsaV gks x;kA blfy, eSa Hkkx
jgk gwWA iqfyl c;ku izn"kZ ,u, 1 dk Hkkx , ls ch ^^esjs
xkM+h------- okyk gwW^^ ckr eSaus iqfyl dks ugha crk;h FkhA ;g
dguk xyr gS fd eSaus nq?kZVuk ugha ns[kh gks vkSj Vªd
pkyd }kjk ?kVuk ds ckjs esa crk;s tkus ds ckn eSa ?kVukLFky
ij x;k gksmA"
7. Learned Tribunal while analyzing the evidence of AW-5
observed as under:
"13- mDr rudh ds leFkZu esa izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls p{kq lk{kh
ds :i esa ,-MCY;w 5 oa"khyky dks is"k dj ijhf{kr djok;k gSA
mDr xokg us eq[; ijh{k.k esa dFku fd;k gS fd fnukad 07-
06-2015 dh jkf= lok rhu cts dh ckr gS] og cksysjks ls
jkensojk tk jgk FkkA muds lkFk gh xkao dh fMtk;j swift
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42443] (13 of 21) [CMA-228/2022]
dkj Hkh FkhA os yksx "ksjx< ds ikl Hkwaxjk xkao cl LVs.M ds
ikl igqaps rks lkeus ls Vªd la[;k vkj-ts- &19&1th& 9090
rst xfr o ykijokgh ls pyrk gqvk vk;k vkSj muds vkxs
py jgh swift dkj ds VDdj ekj nhA nq?kZVuk Vªd pkyd
dh xyrh ls gqbZ FkhA
14- chek daiuh dh vksj ls dh xbZ ftjg esa xokg us dFku
fd;k gS fd e`rd o og ,d gh tkfr o xkao ds gSA ?
kVukLFky ij fMokbMj ugha FkkA ?kVuk vkeus lkeus gqbZ FkhA
nq?kZVuk ds ckn Vªd pkyd Hkkx x;k FkkA xokg us ftjg esa
bl lq>kko ls budkj fd;k gS fd mlus nq?kZVuk ugha ns[kh gks
;k fd Vªd pkyd }kjk ?kVuk ds ckjs esa crk;s tkus ds ckn
og ?kVukLFky ij x;k gksA mls Vªd pkyd us ;g ugha dgk
fd mlls ,DlhMsaV gks x;kA iqfyl c;ku izn"kZ ,u 1 dk Hkkx
, ls ch **esjh xkMh ls xyrh ls ,d f"kQV dk ,DlhMsaV gks
x;k gSA ekSds ij jkLrk tke gks x;k gS o yksxksa dh HkhM
bDVBh gks xbZ gSA blfy, Mj ds ekjs Hkkx jgk gwaA esjk uke
eq[R;kjflag iq= n"kZu flag tkfr tV fl[k] fuoklh eksxk
iatkc dk jgus okyk gwa** mlus iqfyl dks ugha fy[kk;kA xokg
us bl lq>kko ls budkj fd;k gS fd mlus nq?kZVuk ugha ns[kh
gks vkSj Vªd pkyd }kjk ?kVuk ds ckjs esa crk;s tkus ds ckn
og ?kVukLFky ij x;k gksA
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42443] (14 of 21) [CMA-228/2022]
15- bl izdkj izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls p{kq lk{kh ds :i esa
mifLFkr xokg ,-MCY;w 5 oa"khyky us vius lkeus nq?kZVuk
dkfjr gksuk o vkeus lkeus dh VDdj ls nq?kZVuk gksuk crk;k
gSA"
8. Learned Tribunal after analyzing the Site Report (uD"kk ekSdk)
(Exhibit-4), 'gkykr ekSdk' and MTO report of both the vehicles,
concluded that both the vehicles collided and hence found the
deceased driver of car also negligent for the accident in question.
The learned Tribunal recorded the findings as under:
"18- tgka rd nq?kZVuk esa ykijokgh dk iz"u gS] i=koyh ij
miyC/k ?kVukLFky dk uD"kk ekSdk izn"kZ 04 ds voyksdu ls
izdV gksrk gS fd ?kVuk LFky ij jksM dks ekdZ , jketh dk
xksy ls ekdZ ch QykSnh dh vksj tkus okys esxk gkbZos dks
n"kkZ;k x;k gSA uD"kk ekSdk esa ekdZ ,Dl LFkku ij nksuksa okguksa
dh VDdj ls nq?kZVuk gksuk n"kkZ;k x;k gSA ihfMr i{k dh dkj
ekdZ , ls ch rjQ tk jgh FkhA tc fd iz"uxr okgu ekdZ ch
ls , dh rjQ tk jgk FkkA uD"kk ekSdk esa fn[kk;s ekdZ ,Dl
LFkku ds vuqlkj nksuksa okgu jksM ds Bhd dsUnz fcUnw ls gYdk
lk ihfMr i{k dh dkj dh rjQ ,d nwljs ls lkeus ls Vdjk
dj nq?kZVukxzLr gq;s gSA ?kVukLFky ds gkykr ekSdk ds vuqlkj
dkj iwjh rjg ls {kfrxzLr gqbZ gS rFkk Vªd dk vxyk ifg;k
okyk fgLlk Msest gqvk gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k nksuksa okguksa dh
esdsfudy eqvk;uk fjiksVZ dh izekf.kr izfr ds voyksdu ls
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42443] (15 of 21) [CMA-228/2022]
izdV gksrk gS fd ihfM+r i{k dh dkj f"kOQ~V fMtk;j dk batu]
cksMh] lhV] Oghy iwjh rjg ls {kfrxzLr gq;s gSA blh izdkj
iz"uxr okgu Vªd ds vkxs dk nkfguh lkbZM dh gsM ykbZV
QwVh gqbZ] vkxs dh nkfguh lkbZM dh cksMh vUnj eqph gqbZ] vkxs
nk;h lkbZM cEij vUnj dh rjQ ewMk gqvk] vkxs ,Dpy Vk;j
vyx gqvk gqok n"kkZ;k x;k gSA blh izdkj LVs;fjax jksM VwVh
gqbZ gksuk o Mhty Vsad lkbZM ls eqph gqbZ o QwVh gqbZ gksuk
n"kkZ;k x;k gSA nksuksa okgu pkyw gkyr esa ugha gksuk n"kkZ;k
x;k gSA bl izdkj ?kVukLFky dk uD"kk ekSdk o gkyr ekSdk
rFkk nksuksa okguksa dh esdsfudy eqvk;uk fjiksVZ ds rqyukRed
v/;;u ls Li'V izdV gksrk gS fd nq?kZVuk ds le; iz"uxr
okgu jksM ds Bhd dsUnz fcUnw ls gYdk lk foijhr fn"kk esa x;k
gS vkSj ihfM+r i{k dh dkj ftldks fd jksM ds dsUnz fcUnw ls
gV dj fdukjs dh rjQ pyuk pkfg, Fkk ,slk u dj ihfM+r
i{k dh dkj jksM ds dsUnz fcUnw ds ikl vkbZ gSA ihfMr i{k dh
dkj dk vkxs dk iwjk fgLlk iz"uxr okgu dh pkyd lkbM ds
fgLls ij tkdj Vdjk;k gSA ;fn iz"uxr okgu iwjh rjg xyr
lkbZM esa tkdj ihfMr i{k dh dkj ds lkeus ls VDdj ekjrk
rks iz"uxr okgu dk lkeus dk iwjk fgLlk {kfrxzLr gksrk] tc
fd ,slk u gksdj dsoy pkyd lkbM dk fgLlk {kfrxzLr gqvk
gSA blh izdkj ;fn dkj oDr nq?kZVuk viuh fn"kk esa lh/kh py
jgh gksrh rks dkj dk dsoy pkyd lkbM dk fgLlk iz"uxr
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42443] (16 of 21) [CMA-228/2022]
okgu ds pkyd lkbM ls Vdjkrk ;k {kfrxzLr gksrkA
ijUrq ,slk u gksdj dkj dk vkxs dk iwjk fgLlk {kfrxzLr gqvk
gS tks ;g izdV djrk gS fd nq?kZVuk esa dkj pkyd dh Hkh
ykijokgh jgh gSA"
9. On perusal of the Site Report (uD"kk ekSdk), this Court is of
the considered opinion that learned Tribunal rightly recorded the
finding that had the offending vehicle hit the car after coming into
the wrong lane, the front part of truck would have been damaged,
but in fact only the driver side of the vehicle was damaged.
Additionally, had the car been driven straight in its lane, it would
not have been damaged completely, only its driver side would
have been damaged. However, admittedly, car was completely
damaged which proves the negligence of the car driver too.
10. So far as judgment passed in the case of Ranjeet Singh
(supra) as relied upon by learned counsel for the claimants is
concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present
case as therein the Court recorded a specific finding that there
was no evidence available on record to prove the negligence of the
deceased. The case therein was of 3 persons driving on a
motorcycle. The Court therein held as under:
"10. Assuming that the victims of motor accident were
admittedly in contravention of the provisions of Section
128 of the Act and also assuming that violation of safety
measures is a sort of negligence on the part of victim of
accident, the same cannot stand to prove that their
negligence has contributed to the accident in absence of
evidence to the contrary. The record reveals that there is
complete lack of evidence that negligence of the deceased
had contributed to the accident, therefore, the Tribunal
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42443] (17 of 21) [CMA-228/2022]
has wrongly deducted 25% of the claim amount against
contributory negligence by entering into arena of
conjectures and surmises."
11. The above ratio would definitely not apply to the present
matter, the contributory negligence of the deceased driver having
been proved on record.
12. In view of the above observations, this Court is of the
opinion that the learned Tribunal has prudently adopted a holistic
approach while deciding the issue qua negligence while
considering the material placed on record as well as the oral
evidence by the witnesses. The finding qua negligence of deceased
driver Bhagwanaram as recorded by the learned Tribunal is totally
in consonance with the material/documents placed on record and
the same does not deserve any interference. The present appeal is
hence, dismissed
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1146/2021 (Claim Petition
No.239/2015) (deceased child - 13 yrs.)
1. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant-
claimants challenging the award in question on two grounds:
First, learned Tribunal erred in not granting any
compensation qua 'consortium' to the claimants rather has only
awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-;
Second, learned Tribunal erred in deducting amount qua
contributory negligence of driver from the compensation amount
as awarded to the claimants.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that deceased
Prashant (minor) was traveling as an occupant in the vehicle in
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42443] (18 of 21) [CMA-228/2022]
question and hence, because of the alleged negligence of the
driver, claimants cannot be made to suffer.
3. Heard counsels and perused the record.
4. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the
learned Tribunal, while relying upon the Hon'ble Apex Court
judgment in Kishan Gopal & Anr. vs. Lala & Ors.; 2014 (1)
SCC 244 awarded a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- keeping into
consideration the age of the minor deceased i.e. 13 years. In
Kishan Gopal (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering
the earlier judgments in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation; (2009) 6 SCC 121, Lata Wadhwa & Ors. vs.
State of Bihar & Ors.; (2001) 8 SCC 197 & Kerala SRTC v.
Susamma Thomas; (1994) 2 SCC 176 held that notional
income of Rs.30,000/- per annum can be considered for a child
between the age of 10 to 15 years and an award of Rs.50,000/-
ought to be granted under conventional heads.
5. In view of the ratio laid down in Kishan Gopal (supra), this
Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal rightly awarded
the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and the same does not
deserve any interference to the said extent.
6. So far as the second ground raised qua deduction of
contributory negligence from the total award amount is concerned,
the issue has already been dealt with and decided by this Court in
the preceding paras while deciding CMA No.228/2022. The same
conclusion would apply herein too and it is held that the learned
Tribunal erred in deducting 40% of the award amount qua
contributory negligence.
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42443] (19 of 21) [CMA-228/2022]
7. In view of the above observations, the present appeal is
partly allowed and the impugned judgment/award dated
01.10.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal First,
Jodhpur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.239/2015 is modified to
the extent that the appellant-claimants shall be entitled to the
complete amount of compensation i.e. Rs.5,00,000/- as awarded
by the learned Tribunal.
8. The 40% of unpaid award amount which is to be paid now
shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till the date of actual payment.
9. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the award amount (if not deposited yet) 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.
10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1147/2021 (Claim Petition
No.240/2015)
1. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant-
claimants on the sole ground that learned Tribunal erred in
deducting 40% amount qua contributory negligence of the driver
from the compensation amount as awarded to the claimants.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that deceased
Jhammu Devi was travelling as an occupant in the vehicle in
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42443] (20 of 21) [CMA-228/2022]
question and hence, due to alleged negligence of the driver,
claimants cannot be made to suffer.
3. Heard learned counsels and perused the record.
4. Coming on to the ground raised qua deduction of
contributory negligence from the total award amount is concerned,
the issue has already been dealt with and decided by this Court in
the preceding paras while deciding CMA No.228/2022. The same
conclusion would apply herein too and it is held that the learned
Tribunal erred in deducting 40% of the award amount qua
contributory negligence.
5. In view of the above observations, the present appeal is
partly allowed and the impugned judgment/award dated
01.10.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal First,
Jodhpur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.240/2015 is modified to
the extent that the appellant-claimants shall be entitled to the
complete amount of compensation i.e. Rs.9,50,060/- as awarded
by the learned Tribunal.
6. The 40% of unpaid award amount which is to be paid now
shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till the date of actual payment.
7. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the award amount (if not deposited yet) 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.
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42443] (21 of 21) [CMA-228/2022]
8. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
273-277/-
(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:58:34 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
