Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Moda Ram And Ors vs Mohd.Khan And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:35737) on 11 August, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:35737]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3503/2011
1. Moda Ram S/o Shri Dhuka Ram, age 59 years,
2. Smt. Valu Devi W/o Moda Ram, age 57 years,
Residents of Majiwala, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Bamer.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Mohammed Khan S/o Ali Khan, Resident of Kailash Nagar,
Grampura, Surat, Gujrat. At present Padru, Tehsil Sivana,
District Barmer.
2. Jalam Singh S/o Nag Singh, Resident of Padru, Tehsil
Sivana, District Barmer.
3. Ahmed Khan S/o Nizammudin, Resident of Station Road,
Tinwari, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
4. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, 12 th Residency
Road, Jodhpur, Branch Office Kher Road, Balotra.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mudit Vaishnav.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. TRS Sodha.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
11/08/2025
1. The instant misc. appeal has been filed by the
claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the validity of
judgment/award dated 19.12.2005 passed by the learned Judge,
MACT, District Balotra, in MAC Case No.77/2004, whereby claim
petition of the claimants was partly allowed and were awarded an
amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,52,000/- in total with
the interest @ 6% p.a.
(Downloaded on 11/08/2025 at 09:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35737] (2 of 5) [CMA-3503/2011]
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.05.2004, at about
07:00 P.M., the deceased Suresh was returning on his bicycle
along with his companion, Kalyannath, on the Sindhari-Balotra
Road. At the relevant time, when they reached near the godown of
the Food Corporation of India (FCI), situated on the correct side of
the said road, the respondent Shri Mohammad Khan came driving
a Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-19-G-9040. The
said vehicle was being driven by the respondent-driver at an
excessive speed, in a rash and negligent manner. It is stated that
the driver – Mohd. Khan, while so driving, took the vehicle to the
wrong side of the road and violently hit the bicycle on which the
deceased Suresh and his companion Kalyannath were travelling.
Due to the forceful impact, Suresh sustained grievous injuries,
which proved fatal, resulting in his death on the spot. His
companion, Kalyannath, also suffered injuries in the said accident.
Thereafter, the accident was reported at the Police Station,
Balotra, where the First Information Report was duly registered.
Upon completion of investigation, the police found sufficient
material to proceed against the accused.
3. Thereafter, the claimants, being the family of the deceased
Suresh, filed a claim petition bearing MAC Case No.77/2004 and
respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 submitted separate replies, denying
most of the claims made in the petition due to lack of knowledge
and respondent No.4 being the Insurance Company filed the
separate reply and prayed for rejection of the claim petition. As
per the pleadings, learned Tribunal framed issues. Thereafter, on
behalf of the claimants, the statements of A.W. Modaram and A.W.
Kallaram were recorded. No evidence was presented by
(Downloaded on 11/08/2025 at 09:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35737] (3 of 5) [CMA-3503/2011]
respondents No. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 4, the insurance
company, submitted the affidavit of N.A.W. Kunjbihari, which was
duly examined. The claimants also produced documentary
evidence, with documents marked from Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 12
being presented.
4. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal partly
allowed the claim petition of the claimants and vide
judgment/award dated 19.12.2005 awarded quantum of
compensation to the tune of Rs.1,52,000/- with the interest @ 6%
p.a. and being dissatisfied of the award, the claimants have
preferred the claim petition.
5. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants confined his
arguments on two counts viz. the learned Tribunal has seriously
erred in applying the multiplier of 15, which looking to the age of
the deceased viz. 19 years, deserves to be 16 and, therefore, the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal deserves to be
enhanced accordingly, however, the learned Tribunal has erred in
limiting the compensation to Rs.1,52,000. He also submits that
the learned Tribunal has not awarded a single penny towards the
loss of estate, which deserves proper compensation. He submits
that the interest @ 6% per annum awarded by the learned
Tribunal is also on lower side, which also deserves to be enhanced
in line with Supreme Court precedents.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company
vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the appellants’
counsel but, he is not in position to dispute the same.
7. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at
Bar and have gone through the impugned award.
(Downloaded on 11/08/2025 at 09:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35737] (4 of 5) [CMA-3503/2011]
8. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has wrongly
applied the multiplier of 15 instead of 16, as per second schedule
under Section 163-A of MV Act, 1988 looking to the age of the
deceased i.e. 19 years at the time of accident. The claimants are
also held entitled to get compensation under the head of loss of
estate @ Rs.2,500/- for the claimant in the light of Second
Schedule under Section 163-A of the Act of 19688. Both the
counsel were directed to jointly submit the calculation of the
compensation awardable to the claimants afresh in light of the
guidelines laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. reported in (2017)16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, The
award is modified in the following manner:-
Particulars Amount awarded Amount
by Tribunal awarded/enhanced
by this Court
Monthly Income of the Rs.15000/- Rs.15000/-
deceased
(Less) deduction 1/3rd i.e. Rs.5000/- Rs.5000/-
Rs.15000/- x 1/3 of 5000/-
Annual income of the deceased Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Rs.10,000 x 16 (multiplier) 150000/- Rs.160000/-
(Add) Rs.2,000/- towards Rs.2000/- Rs.4,500/-
funeral expenses and (Funeral
Rs.2,500/- towards loss of expenses)
estate
TOTAL Rs.1,64,500/-
AWARDED BY TRIBUNAL Rs.1,52,000/-
ENHANCED AMOUNT (1,64,500 – 1,52,000) Rs.12,500/-
10. Accordingly, the instant misc. appeal is partly allowed and
the amount of compensation payable to the claimants is further
enhanced by Rs.12,500/- in the terms stated above. The
(Downloaded on 11/08/2025 at 09:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35737] (5 of 5) [CMA-3503/2011]
enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of filing of claim petition till the date of deposit. The
enhanced amount shall be deposited by the respondents/non-
claimants jointly and severally with the Tribunal within a period of
two months from today failing which, the interest shall stand
enhanced @ 7.5% per annum from the date of this order till actual
realization.
11. The award judgment-cum-award dated 19.12.2005 passed
by the learned Judge, MACT., District Balotra, in MAC Case
No.77/2004, is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
200-Devesh/-
(Downloaded on 11/08/2025 at 09:53:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)