[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sattar Khan vs Naresh Vaishnav (2026:Rj-Jd:4460) on 23 January, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:4460]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3095/2025

1.       Sattar Khan S/o Anwar Khan, Aged About 37 Years,
         Resident Of 351, Barhmano Ka Baas, Dhamali, Tehsil
         Marwar Junction, District Pali (Raj.).
2.       Joya Khan D/o Sattar Khan, Aged About 12 Years,
         (Appellant No. 2 Is Minor Therefore Represented By
         Natural Guardian Appellant No. 1) Resident Of 351,
         Barhmano Ka Baas, Dhamali, Tehsil Marwar Junction,
         District Pali (Raj.).
3.       Shahjad Husain S/o Satar Khan, Aged About 9 Years,
         (Appellant No. 3 Is Minor Therefore Represented By
         Natural Guardian Appellant No. 1) Resident Of 351,
         Barhmano Ka Baas, Dhamali, Tehsil Marwar Junction,
         District Pali (Raj.).
4.       Jetun W/o Late Anwar Khan, Aged About 70 Years,
         Resident Of 351, Barhmano Ka Baas, Dhamali, Tehsil
         Marwar Junction, District Pali (Raj.).
                                                                      ----Appellants
                                       Versus
1.       Naresh Vaishnav S/o Madan Vaishnav, Resident Of 57,
         Vidhyanagar,        Behind        Bangad        College,     District   Pali.
         (Vehicle Driver)
2.       Umar Farukh S/o Mohd. Sayed, Resident Of 37, Navlakha
         Road, District Pali. (Vehicle Owner)
3.       Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Office
         Peninsula Business Park, Tower A, 15Th Floor, G K Marg
         Lower Parel, Mumbai. (Insurance Company)
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Aman Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Aditya Singhi



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Judgment

23/01/2026

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 05:43:39 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4460] (2 of 7) [CMA-3095/2025]

1. The present civil misc. appeal has been filed by the

appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation

amount awarded vide judgment/award dated 16.05.2025 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali ("learned Tribunal"), in

MAC Case No. 122/2023, whereby appellants-claimants were held

entitled for payment of compensation to the tune of

Rs.28,35,210/- and liability to pay was fastened upon the

respondents with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing

the claim petition i.e., 02.06.2023.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nutshell are

that on 26.12.2022, at about 11:00 am, the deceased, namely,

Mrs. Ruksana was walking on the road with her children. A riksha

bearing registration no. RJ-19-PA-2432 and driven by Mr. Naresh

Vaishnav, who was driving rashly and negligently collided into her.

Consequently, it resulted in the death of Mrs. Ruksana. The said

vehicle was insured by the respondent-insurer.

3. A claim petition was filed on 02.06.2023 by legal

representatives of the deceased before the Tribunal claiming

compensation to the tune of Rs.1,29,11,225/. On basis of

pleadings of the parties, Tribunal settled 4 issues for

determination. With regard to issue no. 1, Tribunal examined

various evidence on record and held that driver of the offending

vehicle was indeed driving rashly and negligently which resulted in

the death of the deceased.

4. With regard to issues no. 2 and 4, Tribunal took deceased's

monthly income to be Rs.14,817/- and ascertained number of

dependents to be three, excluding mother-in-law of the deceased.

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 05:43:39 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4460] (3 of 7) [CMA-3095/2025]

Further, tribunal computed quantum of compensation under the

head of consortium for three members.

5. Learned Tribunal vide its order dated 16.05.2025, awarded

compensation to respondent claimants amounting to

Rs.28,35,210/- and the liability to pay, was fastened upon the

respondent nos. 1, 2, and 3 along with interest @6% per annum

from date of filing the claim petition.

6. The present appeal is confined to a challenge against the

quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the

heads of loss of income, consortium, number of dependents and

the interest rate awarded by Tribunal. Appellants do not dispute

the amount awarded under the other conventional heads.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that

the Tribunal erred in assessing the claimant's income at ₹14,817/-

per month, despite uncontroverted evidence on record, including

the testimony of one of the employers (A.W.3), who categorically

stated that the claimant was employed and was earning a fixed

monthly salary of Rs.18,000/-. In absence of any rebuttal to this

evidence, the Tribunal was not justified in discarding the same. He

placed reliance on Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, (2022) 1

SCC 198 and Rajwati v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699.

8. He further submitted that Tribunal wrongly excluded mother-

in-law and ascertained the number of dependents as only three.

He placed reliance on N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS

General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 14 SCC 712.

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 05:43:39 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4460] (4 of 7) [CMA-3095/2025]

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance

company submits that Tribunal was correct in assessing the

monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.14,817/-. He

further submits that Tribunal was justified in awarding

compensation under the head loss of consortium for three

members as mother-in-law of the deceased cannot be said to be

dependent of the deceased.

10. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and

perused the documents on record.

11. This Court finds merit in appellant's contentions. Considering

the oral evidence on record, including the oral testimony of the

employer Mr. Ramswaroop (A.W.2) and the testimony of the

dependent who categorically stated that deceased was employed

and earning a fixed monthly salary, this court is inclined to take

the income of the deceased at Rs.16,039/- per month for the

purpose of computing loss of dependency. Such unrebutted

statements cannot be ignored on technical grounds. With regard

to the same, reliance can be placed on Chandra (Supra) wherein

the Hon'ble Apex Court held that mere absence of documentary

evidence does not justify the adoption of lowest tier of minimum

wage which computing income. The relevant paragraph is

reproduced herein:

"9. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning Rs 15,000 per month. Possessing such licence and driving of heavy vehicle on the date of accident is proved from the evidence on record. Though the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed as AW 1 that her husband Shivpal was earning Rs 15,000 per month, same was

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 05:43:39 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4460] (5 of 7) [CMA-3095/2025]

not considered only on the ground that salary certificate was not filed. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016. In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because the claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs 15,000 per month."

12. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajwati (Supra) held

that strict rules of evidence are not applicable while computing

compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The relevant

paragraph is reproduced herein:

"20. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, the Tribunal's role would be to award just and fair compensation. As held by this Court in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata (Supra), strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases, i.e., to say, "the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases".

13. This Court finds that Tribunal erred in taking into account

only three dependents instead of four and in excluding the

mother-in-law. By virtue of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being a

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 05:43:39 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4460] (6 of 7) [CMA-3095/2025]

beneficial legislation, the term 'legal representative' should be

given a wider interpretation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in N.

Jayasree (Supra) reiterated the same. The relevant paragraph is

reproduced herein:

"16. In our view, the term "legal representative"

should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of the MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. As noticed above, the MV Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary relief to the victims or their families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and fulfil its legislative intent. We are also of the view that in order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish his loss of dependency. Section 166 of the MV Act makes it clear that every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation."

14. For the above mentioned reasons, this Court finds it

justifiable to take the monthly income of the deceased to the tune

of Rs.16,039 and number of dependents to be four, including

mother-in-law of the deceased. Therefore, the appropriate

deduction applicable in the present case should be 1/4 th.

Consequently, Consortium amount is also awarded to mother-in-

law.

15. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is partly allowed and

the impugned judgment/award dated 06.05.2025 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in MAC Case No. 122/2023, is

modified to the extent that the appellant-claimant shall be entitled

to the following compensation:

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 05:43:39 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4460] (7 of 7) [CMA-3095/2025]

REASSESSMENT OF AMOUNT (in Rupees) COMPENSATION Annual Income Rs.16,039 X 12= Rs.1,92,468/-

                                   Future Prospects                       40%
                                                                          1,92,468 X 40%= Rs.76,987/-

                                                                          (1,92,468+76,987) X 16
                                                                          =Rs.43,11,280/-


                                                                          Rs.10,77,820/-
                                   Loss of Income                         43,11,280-10,77,820
                                                                          Rs.32,33,460/-
                                   Consortium                             48,000 X 4
                                                                          Rs.1,92,000/-
                                   Loss of estate                         Rs.18,000/-
                                   Funeral expenses                       Rs.18,000/-
                                   Total Compensation:     32,33,460 + 1,92,000 + 18,000 +
                                                           18,000=
                                                           Rs.34,61,460/-