Jaipur v. Kailash Chand Meena S/o Laxminarayan Meena, By Cast

Smt. Rajkumar @ Ramshumari Devi W/o Shobhit Kumar, R/o Village - Patona, Police Station- Baso Patti, District- Madhubani, Bihar, At Present R/o- Plot No. A-50, Siddarth Nagar, Police Station- Jawahar Circle, Jaipur.

6. Kumari Ekta D/o Late Shravan Kumar, No. 2, 3 And 6 Are Minor Through Their Natural Guardian And Mother Smt. Manju Devi R/o Village - Patona, Police Station- Baso Patti, District- Madhubani, Bihar, At Present R/o- Plot No. A-50, Siddarth Nagar, Police Station- Jawahar Circle, Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus

1. Kailash Chand Meena S/o Laxminarayan Meena, By Cast- Meena, R/o Purana Ghat, Khaniya, Agra Road, Jaipur. Driver And Owner Of Truck No. Rj-14-2G-3617

2. National Insurance Company Limited, Through Manager, D.o.-1, Panchbatti, M.i. Road, Jaipur. Insurance Company Of Truck No. Rj-14-2G-3617 ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:19558] (2 of 7) [CMA-1959/2017] For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kamal Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tripurari Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 08/05/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the judgment and award dated 13.01.2017 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as "the learned MACT/ Tri- bunal"), in MAC Case No.957/2013, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants/appellants has been allowed and the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.11,02,256/- as compensation, along with interest @ 7.5%, in favour of the claimants/appellants.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on

14.04.2013, the deceased Sharvan Kumar, along with his friend Sunil, was returning to home on a Scooter Bearing Registration No.RJ-14-27M-6836 and when they reached near Tilak Hospital, Agra Road, a Dumper Bearing Registration No.RJ-14-2G-3617 came from behind in a very rash and negligent manner and hit the Scooter. As a result of this accident, the deceased Sharvan Kumar sustained grievous injury and later on died. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1- Kailash Chand Meena, who was the driver of the Dumper. It was further pleaded that at the time of the accident, the deceased Sharvan Kumar was 30 years old and was earning around Rs.10,000/- by running a food counter selling Paratha & Patasi. [2025:RJ-JP:19558] (3 of 7) [CMA-1959/2017] Accordingly, the claimants/appellants sought a compensation for the death of the deceased Sharvan Kumar.

3. The respondent/non-claimant No.1-Kailash Chand Meena filed a reply to the claim petition, wherein, he denied the aver- ments made by the claimants/appellants in the claim petition and submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the claim pe- tition.

4. The respondent/non-claimant No.2-Insurance Company, also filed a reply to the claim petition, wherein, the Insurance Com- pany denied the averments made by the claimants/appellants in the claim petition and submitted that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants/appellants.

5. On the pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: **01- vk;k fnukad 14-04-2013 dks le; yxHkx 8-15 ih-,e cts vizkFkhZ dze&,d ds }kjk okgu la[;k Vªd la[;k vkjts 14&2th 3617 dks rstxfr] xQyr o ykijokgh ls pykdj nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh x;h ftlds QyLo:i Jo.k dqekj dh e`R;q gqbZA oDr nq?kZVuk pkyd vizkFkhZ dze&,d ds }kjk mDr okgu Lo;a ds fgrkFkZ ,oa fu;kstu esa pyk;k tk jgk FkkA \ 02- vk;k izkFkhZx.k vius Dyse izkFkZuk&i= esa of.kZr {kfriwfrZ jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa \ ;fn gka rks fdlls ,oa fdl dnj \ 03- vk;k vizkFkhZ la[;k&,d o nks ds tokc izkFkZuk&i= dh vkifRr;ksa esa of.kZr dkj.kksa ls chek [email protected] mRrjnk;h ugha gS \ 04- vuqrks"k \** [2025:RJ-JP:19558] (4 of 7) [CMA-1959/2017]

6. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim pe- tition, the claimants examined Smt. Manju Devi (AW.1) and Sunil Yadav (AW.2) and produced Eleven documents (Ex.1 to 11).

7. In rebuttal, no evidence was presented by either the owner and driver of the vehicle or by the Insurance Company.

8. After hearing arguments from both the parties, the learned MACT has partly allowed the judgment/award dated 17.09.2015 and awarded a sum of Rs.12,05,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants/appellants.

9. That against the judgment and award dated 17.09.2015, the claimants/appellants preferred the S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.626/2016, and the respondent-Insurance Company preferred the S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4375/2015.

10. After hearing the arguments of both the parties in these ap- peals, this Court, vide order dated 28.03.2016, maintained the findings recorded for Issues No.1, 3 and 4. However, this Court quashed and set aside the findings for Issue No.2 and remanded the matter to the learned Tribunal to decide the issue of quantum afresh.

11. That after the remand, the learned Tribunal re-heard the ar- guments of the parties and subsequently passed an impugned judgment/award dated 13.01.2017, awarding a sum of Rs.11,02,256/- as compensation in favour of the claimants/appel- lants.

12. That learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred by awarding an inadequate amount for loss of dependency etc. He further submits that the [2025:RJ-JP:19558] (5 of 7) [CMA-1959/2017] learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased Rs.166/- per day, despite evidence adduced by the claimants/ap- pellants showing an income of Rs.10,000/- per month from run- ning a food counter of Paratha & Patasi. Additionally, he submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in calculating the income for only 26 days whereas it should have considered at least the mini- mum wages for 30 days. Further, he submits that a meagre amount was awarded towards loss of love, affection and consor- tium etc., and therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal should be modified.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has supported the impugned award and submitted that the impugned award is based on a correct appreciation of facts and law. He also supported the finding of the learned Tribunal re- garding assessment of income at Rs.166/- per day. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court and the appeal be dismissed.

14. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

15. From a perusal of record, it is clear that the claimants have failed to adduce any conclusive or cogent evidence with regard to the fact that the deceased Sharvan Kumar was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by running a food counter of Paratha & Patasi. In the absence of any conclusive evidence, the learned Tri- bunal has rightly calculated the income of the deceased on the ba- sis of minimum wages at Rs.166/- per day, prevalent on the date of accident.

16. Considering the facts and the contention of the learned coun- sel for the appellants/claimants, as also the fact that the income [2025:RJ-JP:19558] (6 of 7) [CMA-1959/2017] ought to have been assessed at Rs.10,000/- per month, lacks merit and the income of the deceased, should have been calcu- lated for 30 days instead of 26 days, deserves to be accepted.

17. Furthermore, the other arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants with regard to the awarding of a meagre amount towards loss of love, affection and consortium etc., also deserve to be accepted and enhanced, in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680.

18. That if we examine the facts of the case in the light of the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court finds that the compensation awarded to the claimants/appellants under the impugned order is enhanced in terms of the table herein below: Loss of Income(+) Rs.166x30x12x16=Rs.9,56,160/- Future Prospects 40% (+) Rs.3,82,464/- Deduction 1/4 (Personal Ex- penses) (-) Loss of Love, Affection and Consortium (Rs.40,000/-x6) (+) Rs.3,34,656/- Rs.2,40,000/- Funeral Expenses(+) Loss of Estate(+) Total Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.12,73,968/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.11,02,256/- Enhanced amount of compen- sation Rs.1,71,712/-

19. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned MACT is modified by enhancing to Rs. [2025:RJ-JP:19558] (7 of 7) [CMA-1959/2017] 12,73,968/- from the original amount of Rs.11,02,256/-. The In- surance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.1,71,712/- before the learned concerned MACT Court within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. The claimant is also entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount Rs.1,71,712/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim peti- tion till the realization of the said amount.

20. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The com- pensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and en- hanced as per the terms indicated above.

21. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Amit/62 Whether Reportable : Yes/No

Smt. Rajkumar @ Ramshumari Devi W/o Shobhit Kumar, R/o Village - Patona, Police Station- Baso Patti, District- Madhubani, Bihar, At Present R/o- Plot No. A-50, Siddarth Nagar, Police Station- Jawahar Circle, Jaipur.

6. Kumari Ekta D/o Late Shravan Kumar, No. 2, 3 And 6 Are Minor Through Their Natural Guardian And Mother Smt. Manju Devi R/o Village - Patona, Police Station- Baso Patti, District- Madhubani, Bihar, At Present R/o- Plot No. A-50, Siddarth Nagar, Police Station- Jawahar Circle, Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus

1. Kailash Chand Meena S/o Laxminarayan Meena, By Cast- Meena, R/o Purana Ghat, Khaniya, Agra Road, Jaipur. Driver And Owner Of Truck No. Rj-14-2G-3617

2. National Insurance Company Limited, Through Manager, D.o.-1, Panchbatti, M.i. Road, Jaipur. Insurance Company Of Truck No. Rj-14-2G-3617 ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:19558] (2 of 7) [CMA-1959/2017] For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kamal Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tripurari Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 08/05/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the judgment and award dated 13.01.2017 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as "the learned MACT/ Tri- bunal"), in MAC Case No.957/2013, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants/appellants has been allowed and the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.11,02,256/- as compensation, along with interest @ 7.5%, in favour of the claimants/appellants.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on

14.04.2013, the deceased Sharvan Kumar, along with his friend Sunil, was returning to home on a Scooter Bearing Registration No.RJ-14-27M-6836 and when they reached near Tilak Hospital, Agra Road, a Dumper Bearing Registration No.RJ-14-2G-3617 came from behind in a very rash and negligent manner and hit the Scooter. As a result of this accident, the deceased Sharvan Kumar sustained grievous injury and later on died. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1- Kailash Chand Meena, who was the driver of the Dumper. It was further pleaded that at the time of the accident, the deceased Sharvan Kumar was 30 years old and was earning around Rs.10,000/- by running a food counter selling Paratha & Patasi. [2025:RJ-JP:19558] (3 of 7) [CMA-1959/2017] Accordingly, the claimants/appellants sought a compensation for the death of the deceased Sharvan Kumar.

3. The respondent/non-claimant No.1-Kailash Chand Meena filed a reply to the claim petition, wherein, he denied the aver- ments made by the claimants/appellants in the claim petition and submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the claim pe- tition.

4. The respondent/non-claimant No.2-Insurance Company, also filed a reply to the claim petition, wherein, the Insurance Com- pany denied the averments made by the claimants/appellants in the claim petition and submitted that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants/appellants.

5. On the pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: **01- vk;k fnukad 14-04-2013 dks le; yxHkx 8-15 ih-,e cts vizkFkhZ dze&,d ds }kjk okgu la[;k Vªd la[;k vkjts 14&2th 3617 dks rstxfr] xQyr o ykijokgh ls pykdj nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh x;h ftlds QyLo:i Jo.k dqekj dh e`R;q gqbZA oDr nq?kZVuk pkyd vizkFkhZ dze&,d ds }kjk mDr okgu Lo;a ds fgrkFkZ ,oa fu;kstu esa pyk;k tk jgk FkkA \ 02- vk;k izkFkhZx.k vius Dyse izkFkZuk&i= esa of.kZr {kfriwfrZ jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa \ ;fn gka rks fdlls ,oa fdl dnj \ 03- vk;k vizkFkhZ la[;k&,d o nks ds tokc izkFkZuk&i= dh vkifRr;ksa esa of.kZr dkj.kksa ls chek [email protected] mRrjnk;h ugha gS \ 04- vuqrks"k \** [2025:RJ-JP:19558] (4 of 7) [CMA-1959/2017]

6. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim pe- tition, the claimants examined Smt. Manju Devi (AW.1) and Sunil Yadav (AW.2) and produced Eleven documents (Ex.1 to 11).

7. In rebuttal, no evidence was presented by either the owner and driver of the vehicle or by the Insurance Company.

8. After hearing arguments from both the parties, the learned MACT has partly allowed the judgment/award dated 17.09.2015 and awarded a sum of Rs.12,05,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants/appellants.

9. That against the judgment and award dated 17.09.2015, the claimants/appellants preferred the S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.626/2016, and the respondent-Insurance Company preferred the S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4375/2015.

10. After hearing the arguments of both the parties in these ap- peals, this Court, vide order dated 28.03.2016, maintained the findings recorded for Issues No.1, 3 and 4. However, this Court quashed and set aside the findings for Issue No.2 and remanded the matter to the learned Tribunal to decide the issue of quantum afresh.

11. That after the remand, the learned Tribunal re-heard the ar- guments of the parties and subsequently passed an impugned judgment/award dated 13.01.2017, awarding a sum of Rs.11,02,256/- as compensation in favour of the claimants/appel- lants.

12. That learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred by awarding an inadequate amount for loss of dependency etc. He further submits that the [2025:RJ-JP:19558] (5 of 7) [CMA-1959/2017] learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased Rs.166/- per day, despite evidence adduced by the claimants/ap- pellants showing an income of Rs.10,000/- per month from run- ning a food counter of Paratha & Patasi. Additionally, he submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in calculating the income for only 26 days whereas it should have considered at least the mini- mum wages for 30 days. Further, he submits that a meagre amount was awarded towards loss of love, affection and consor- tium etc., and therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal should be modified.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has supported the impugned award and submitted that the impugned award is based on a correct appreciation of facts and law. He also supported the finding of the learned Tribunal re- garding assessment of income at Rs.166/- per day. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court and the appeal be dismissed.

14. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

15. From a perusal of record, it is clear that the claimants have failed to adduce any conclusive or cogent evidence with regard to the fact that the deceased Sharvan Kumar was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by running a food counter of Paratha & Patasi. In the absence of any conclusive evidence, the learned Tri- bunal has rightly calculated the income of the deceased on the ba- sis of minimum wages at Rs.166/- per day, prevalent on the date of accident.

16. Considering the facts and the contention of the learned coun- sel for the appellants/claimants, as also the fact that the income [2025:RJ-JP:19558] (6 of 7) [CMA-1959/2017] ought to have been assessed at Rs.10,000/- per month, lacks merit and the income of the deceased, should have been calcu- lated for 30 days instead of 26 days, deserves to be accepted.

17. Furthermore, the other arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants with regard to the awarding of a meagre amount towards loss of love, affection and consortium etc., also deserve to be accepted and enhanced, in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680.

18. That if we examine the facts of the case in the light of the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court finds that the compensation awarded to the claimants/appellants under the impugned order is enhanced in terms of the table herein below: Loss of Income(+) Rs.166x30x12x16=Rs.9,56,160/- Future Prospects 40% (+) Rs.3,82,464/- Deduction 1/4 (Personal Ex- penses) (-) Loss of Love, Affection and Consortium (Rs.40,000/-x6) (+) Rs.3,34,656/- Rs.2,40,000/- Funeral Expenses(+) Loss of Estate(+) Total Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.12,73,968/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.11,02,256/- Enhanced amount of compen- sation Rs.1,71,712/-

19. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned MACT is modified by enhancing to Rs. [2025:RJ-JP:19558] (7 of 7) [CMA-1959/2017] 12,73,968/- from the original amount of Rs.11,02,256/-. The In- surance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.1,71,712/- before the learned concerned MACT Court within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. The claimant is also entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount Rs.1,71,712/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim peti- tion till the realization of the said amount.

20. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The com- pensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and en- hanced as per the terms indicated above.

21. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Amit/62 Whether Reportable : Yes/No