Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Smt Ruksina And Others vs Amarjeet Singh And Others on 11 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JP:10032]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4807/2016
1. Smt. Ruksina wife of Sabbir, aged about 25 years
2. Nisar S/o Sabbir aged about 7 years,
3. Farhan s/o Sabbir aged about 6 years,
4. Istak s/o Sabbir aged about 5 years,
5. Vaseem son of Sabbir aged about 4 years,
Nos. 2 to 5 minor, through their natural Guardian mother
appellant No.1 Smt. Ruksina
All residents of Village Bhandara, Tehsil Kaman, Distt.
Bharatpur (Raj.)
6. Nawab Khan S/o Imam Khan aged about 51 years,
7. Arsina wife of Nawab Khan, aged about 49 years,
Both No. 6 and 7 at present residents of Baroda Meo, Tehsil
Laxmangarh, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Appellants/Claimants
Versus
1. Amarjeet Singh S/o Shri Chain Singh, resident of Village Peji
Chowk, Gurudaspur, Punjab (Driver of Vehicle)
2. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Dilbag, resident of Village and Post
Jakhida, Police Station Bahadurgarh Sadar, District Jhajjhar,
Hariyana (Owner of Vehicle)
3. The New Indian Assurance Company Limited, Chennai
(Insurance Company)
...Respondents/Non claimants
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.P. Mathur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR
JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :: 28/02/2025
JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 11/03/2025
1. The instant civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by
the appellants-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) being aggrieved by
the impugned award dated 12.04.2016 passed by the Presiding
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 10:12:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10032] (2 of 7) [CMA-4807/2016]
Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Laxmangarh, District Alwar
in claim case No. 331/2015 titled as Smt. Ruksina & ors. vs.
Amarjeet Singh and ors. whereby the learned Tribunal has
awarded compensation of Rs. 8,59,400/- in favour of appellants-
claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
2. Briefly stated deceased Sabbir along with Sharwan were
going to Jhunjhunu from Bagad on a motor cycle near Bihad, one
Trolla bearing No. HR-63A-4855 came rashly and negligently and
dashed against the motor cycle to which deceased Sabbir
sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.
3. Notices of claim petition were served to respondents No. 1
and 2 but they have chosen not to appear and contest the claim
petition, therefore the learned Tribunal proceeded ex parte against
them.
Respondent No.3 has filed his written statement by
controverting the facts narrated by the claimants in the claim
petition.
4. The Tribunal has framed four issues for consideration. In
support of claim petition, the claimants have examined AW.1
Ruksina and AW.2 Sharwan Lal and produced Ex.1 to Ex.16 as
documentary evidence.
On the contrary, respondent No.3-Insurance Company has
examined NAW-1 Brijesh Gupta and produced Ex.NA.1 to Ex. NA.2
as documentary evidence.
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 10:12:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10032] (3 of 7) [CMA-4807/2016]
5. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced by
the claimants, the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for
compensation of Rs.8,59,400/- along with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its
realization.
6. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants argued that the
amount of compensation by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to
be adequate compensation. The deceased was the driver of heavy
vehicle but in spite of that, the learned Tribunal has determined
the income on the basis of the prevailing minimum wages. It is
also contended that the learned Tribunal has also erred in not
granting future prospects as per the binding precedents of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Under conventional heads also, the
learned Tribunal has not followed the principles enunciated by the
Supreme Court, therefore, the impugned award may be modified
and be enhanced suitably.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has
requested that the learned Tribunal has passed the award as per
the settled position of law and considering all the material
available on record. The claimants have not filed any proof of
income, therefore, no interference is required to be made in the
award passed by the learned Tribunal.
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 10:12:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10032] (4 of 7) [CMA-4807/2016]
9. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions
of the parties and scanned the matter carefully.
10. The manner of accident and the insurance of the offending
vehicle with respondent No.3 is uncontroverted, hence there is no
scope for discussion on these points.
11. With regard to quantum of compensation, the age and
multiplier as determined by the Tribunal is also undisputed.
12. The learned Tribunal after evaluating the factual aspects
awarded a sum of Rs. 7,34,400/- for loss of income, Rs. 25,000/-
for funeral expenses and for loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000/-
totaling Rs. 8,59,400/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of
realization.
13. The Tribunal ought to have followed the judgments of
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in:-
(i) (2017) 16 SCC 680, National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others
(ii) (2018) 18 SCC 130 Magma General Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors.
However, without following the guidelines issued in the said
judgments, the Tribunal mechanically awarded compensation
which is not permissible.
14. It is evident from the record that appellants-claimants have
not produced any document about the income of the deceased
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 10:12:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10032] (5 of 7) [CMA-4807/2016]
Sabbir as heavy vehicle driver, therefore, the criteria of minimum
wages adopted by the learned Tribunal is fully justified though the
learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as 4500/-
which is not in consonance with the prevailing minimum wages. It
transpires that on the date of accident i.e. 12.4.2014, the
minimum wages for an unskilled labourer was 4914/- per month
@ 189 per day, therefore, considering the month of 30 days,
monthly income of the deceased would come at Rs. 5670/- per
month adding to its 40% as future prospects (Rs.2268/-) in terms
of judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), monthly income of the
deceased would come to Rs. 7938/- per month. Since the
deceased died leaving seven dependents, therefore after
deduction of 1/5 i.e. 1588/- per month from above assessed
income, net income would come to Rs. 6350/- per month and loss
of income comes to Rs. 6350x17x12=12,95,400/-.
15. In addition appellants-claimants are also entitled to a sum of
Rs. 3,10,000/- with increase of its 10% in every three years under
the non-pecuniary heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and
funeral expenses and thereby appellants-claimants are entitled for
Rs.3,72,000/- towards conventional heads as per the dictum of
Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, the
compensation amount is re-assessed as follows:-
Sr. No. Description Amount awarded by Award modified by this Court
Tribunal (in Rs.) (in Rs.)
1. Loss of income 7,34,400/- 12,95,400/-
2. loss of estate Nil 18,000/-
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 10:12:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10032] (6 of 7) [CMA-4807/2016]
3. Filial Consortium 96,000/-
1,00,000/-
4. spousal Consortium 48,000/-
5. parental consortium 1,92,000/-
6. Funeral Expenses 25,000/ 18,000/-
Total Compensation 8,59,400/- 16,67,400/-
16. The appellants-claimants are entitled to total compensation of
Rs. 16,67,400/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the
date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation.
17. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment
and award passed by learned Tribunal is modified to the above
extent.
18. The respondent No.3 Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the modified /enhanced award of amount before the
learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made,
the appellants-claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire
modified/ enhanced award with accrued interest in proportion as
determined in the original award passed by the learned Tribunal,
after deducting the amount already withdrawn, if any, on making
appropriate and necessary application before the Tribunal. The
appellants-claimants shall not be entitled to any interest for the
period of delay in filing the appeal, if any. The Tribunal shall
disburse the enhanced amount upon production of certified copy
of this judgment.
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 10:12:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10032] (7 of 7) [CMA-4807/2016]
19. The appeal is partly allowed.
(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J
BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 10:12:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)