Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Smt. Geeta Devi And Ors vs Gordhan Ram @ Goru And Ors ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2126 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2126 Raj
Judgement Date : 10 February, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Geeta Devi And Ors vs Gordhan Ram @ Goru And Ors ... on 10 February, 2026

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:7411]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 831/2004

1. Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Dhana Ram, Aged about 56 years.
2. Dhana Ram S/o Kuma Ram
3. Bhugani Devi D/o Dhana Ram
4. Suman Devi D/o Dhana Ram.
All b/c Meghwal, R/o Karkedi Police Station, Chitava Post
Sablupura via Kuchaman City District Nagaur.
Appellants-claimants No.3 and 4 are minors through their
natural guardian, the father Dhana Ram, Appellants-Claimant
No.2.
                                                    ----Appellants-Claimants
                                   Versus
1. Gordhan Ram Alias Goru S/o Sewa Ram, B/c Jat R/o Karkedi
Police Station, Chitava Tehsil Nava District Nagaur.
2. Bodu Ram S/o Ghasi Ram, B/c Jat R/o Losal, Ward No.1
District Sikar.
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch
Officer, Sikar and Divisional Office at Residency Road, Jodhpur.
                                          ----Respondents-Non-claimants
                           Connected With
            S.B. Civ. Cros. Obj. Misc. App No. 32/2005
Bodu Ram S/o Shri Ghasi Ram, by caste Jat, R/o Losal Ward
No.1, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
                                          ----Appellant/Owner of the bus.
                                   Versus
1. Smt. Gita Devi W/o Shri Dhanna Ram, Aged 57 years.
2. Dhanna Ram D/o Kuma Ram, Aged 60 years.
3. Bhugani Devi D/o Dhanna Ram, aged 18 years.
4. Suman Devi D/o Dhanna Ram, Aged 16 years.
The respondent No.4 is a minor through her natural guardian
and father Shri Dhanna Ram S/o Shri Kuma Ram,
All by Caste Meghwal, R/o Karkeri, P.S. Chitawa, Post Sabalpura
via Kuchaman City, District Nagaur.
                                                                 Claimants.
5. Gordhan Ram Alias Goru S/o Shri Sewa Ram, By caste Jat,
R/o Village Karkeri, P.S. Chitawa, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur

                     (Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 03:50:12 PM)
                    (Downloaded on 11/02/2026 at 08:48:47 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:7411]                       (2 of 4)                         [CMA-831/2004]


(Raj.).
                                                                    Driver of the bus.
6. United Insurance Company Ltd. Office Sikar, District Sikar.


                                                            ----Insurer of the Bus.


For Appellant(s)               :    None.
For Respondent(s)              :    Mr. Vikram Choudhary
                                    Mr. Mahesh Thanvi.


          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

10/02/2026

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 831/2004:-

1. Heard learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Since the matter has been pending for consideration before

this Court for more than 21 years, therefore, the same is being

decided in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellants.

3. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants for

enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Parbatsar vide its judgment and award dated

03.01.2004, wherein, in an accident, which occurred on

23.04.2002, Parmeshwarlal died. After death of Parmeshwarlal,

claimants preferred a claim application before the learned Tribunal

and the learned Tribunal after framing of the issues decided the

claim application vide judgment dated 03.01.2004, whereby an

award of Rs.1,94,000/- has been passed. Being dissatisfied with

the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal has

been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the award

passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be re-computed in

light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported

in (2017) SC 5157 in the following manner:-

(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 03:50:12 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7411] (3 of 4) [CMA-831/2004]

The age of deceased was 22 years, therefore, a multiplier of

18 will be applied.

       Income       of   the    deceased         =2400/-         per
       month
       Unmarried hence 2400/2=1200/-

(I)    Compensation            due        to 1200 x12 x 18             Rs.    2,59,200/-
       death

(II)   Future Prospects (40%) (self employed)                          Rs.    1,03,680/-

                                              Total Award              Rs. 3,62,880/-

(-)Amount already awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1,94,000/-

Enhanced amount Rs. 1,68,880/-

5. In view of the re-computation of the award, the present

appeal is partly allowed. The appellants-claimants are entitled for

an amount of Rs.1,68,880/- in addition to the amount already

awarded by the learned Tribunal vide its judgment and award

dated 03.01.2004.

6. The respondents are directed to pay the enhanced amount of

Rs.1,68,880/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand

Eight Hundred Eighty Only) to the appellants-claimants within a

period of six weeks from today. The enhanced amount shall carry

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

application till the same is paid.

S.B. Civ. Cros. Obj. Misc. App No. 32/2005:-

1. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the cross objectors.

2. I have gone through the relevant record of the case.

3. It has been averred in the cross objection application that

the deceased Parmeshwarlal, on account of rash and negligent

driving by the Driver of the bus, succumbed to the injuries

sustained by him in the accident occurred on 23.04.2002. It is

(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 03:50:12 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7411] (4 of 4) [CMA-831/2004]

further stated that since the bus was fully insured, therefore,

there is no liability on the part of the owner of the bus to pay any

compensation. It is also stated that if at all any compensation is

required to be paid in the present case, then the liabilities of

paying the same squarely falls on respondent No.6, which is the

Insurance Company and, therefore, it is prayed that the judgment

of the learned Tribunal fastening the liability of paying the

compensation jointly and severally may be quashed and set aside

and it may be held that it is the Insurance Company who may

indemnify the award amount.

4. I have gone through the pleadings and the judgment &

award passed by the learned Tribunal.

5. The finding of fact on all the issues recorded by the learned

Tribunal is based on the evidence available on record. Since the

award passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any

factual mistake during appreciation of evidence on the factum of

accident and has been rightly passed by it, therefore, this Court is

not inclined to interfere in the findings recorded by the learned

Tribunal.

6. Thus, there is no substance in the present cross objection

application filed by the applicants and the same is hereby

dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 27-28-Shahenshah/SunilS-

(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 03:50:12 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter