Sciendhia District Samsatipur Bihar & C/o Phoolo Pandit v. Jaipur

: Mr. Anoop Agrawal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 16/07/2025

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be [2025:RJ-JP:26563] (2 of 5) [CMA-4642/2008] referred to as "the Act of 1988") for enhancement of compensation, assailing the award dated 18.10.2004 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as the "learned Tribunal") in Claim Case No.113/2004, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant has been partly allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that the claim petition was filed by the claimants stating that on

05.05.2000, the deceased was going on his cycle and when he reached near Burfkhana Chaurha, Govind Marg, Jaipur, another vehicle, a Bus bearing registration No.R.J.-11-P-0307 driven by non-claimant/respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased died on the spot.

3. At the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 20 years and he was earning Rs.4,500/- per month by doing the work of Masonry. On account of that accident and death of Late Ram Bharose, the claimants had filed claim petition seeking just and proper compensation.

4. Notice of the claim petition was issued to the non-claimants No.1 and 2 and the non-claimant/respondent No.2 filed a detailed reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made in the claim petition and submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant/appellant.

5. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues. [2025:RJ-JP:26563] (3 of 5) [CMA-4642/2008]

6. In order to substantiate the pleas and averments of the claim, the claimant examined AW-1 Saraswati and AW-2 Phoolo Pandit and produced as many as 12 documents.

7. In rebuttal, the respondents have examined NAW-1 Harish Sharma.

8. After hearing arguments of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal, decided all the issues in favour of claimants and awarded a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- along with the interest of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

9. Being aggrieved of which, the claimant/appellant have preferred the present appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in applying a wrong multiplier. Looking to the age of the deceased to be 20 years, the learned counsel submits that according to the judgment of Sarla Verma v. DTC reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has not considered the aspect of future prospects and amount awarded under the conventional head is also meagre, therefore, the impugned award may be suitably modified and the amount so awarded under the impugned award may kindly be enhanced.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation opposed the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered the facts and evidence on record in the correct perspective, while arriving to a just conclusion, and the amount so awarded is just and proper, and [2025:RJ-JP:26563] (4 of 5) [CMA-4642/2008] hence, does not call for any interference or enhancement by this Court.

12. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

13. From perusal of the record of the case, it is evident that the learned Tribunal assessed the age of the mother of the deceased as 48 years and income of the deceased Rs.2,100/- per month. It is reflected from the impugned order that the learned Tribunal has erred in applying a wrong multiplier by considering the age of the mother of the deceased and not of the deceased. Looking to the age of the deceased to be 20, the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied.

14. It is also evident from the impugned order while granting the compensation the future prospects has not been considered by the learned Tribunal and amount awarded under the conventional head is also very less. Therefore, if the facts of the case is examined in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the light of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, the compensation awarded in the impugned order is required to be suitably enhanced.

15. After taking an overall consideration of the above facts, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under the impugned award is required to be extended to some extent and same is enhanced as per the table made hereinunder:- [2025:RJ-JP:26563] (5 of 5) [CMA-4642/2008] Loss of income Rs.2,100/-x12x18=4,53,600/- Deduction(Personal expenses) (-) (1/3rd) Rs.1,51,200/- Future prospects @40% (+) Rs.1,20,960/- Loss of Love, Affection and Consortium (mother only) Rs.40,000/- Loss of Estate Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total Awarded Amount Rs.4,93,360/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.2,30,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.2,63,360/-

16. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.4,93,360/- from the original amount of Rs.2,30,000/-. The respondent (RSRTC) is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.2,63,360 /- before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. The claimant is also entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount Rs.2,63,360/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until the realization of the said amount.

17. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced as per the terms indicated above.

18. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. SOURAV /143 (MANEESH SHARMA),J