Narendra Kumar v. Mukesh Sharma

: Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Judgment 15/04/2026

#1. This appeal has been filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment and award dated 18.06.2016, passed by the learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Rajgarh, Rajasthan (for short 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.19/2014, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants- appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘claimants’) was partly allowed.

#2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.10.2013, after appearing in a competitive exam, when Smt. Geeta Devi (since deceased) was returning from Alwar alongwith her uncle on a motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-02-AS-9075, near petrol pump at Khothnarainpur Machadi bye-pass, a roadways bus bearing registration No. RJ13-PA- [2026:RJ-JP:15676] (2 of 4) [CMA-5259/2016] 0396 belonging to respondent No.2-Corporation and being driven by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle from behind, as a result of which, Geeta Devi and her uncle fell down and sustained serious injuries and later on Geeta Devi succumbed to the said injuries.

#3. Thereafter, the claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of Smt. Geeta Devi. The said claim petition was partly allowed by the learned Tribunal and a compensation of Rs. 5,26,136/- was awarded, along with interest @

7.5% per annum, in favour of the claimants.

#4. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment and award, the claimants have filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation so awarded.

#5. Learned counsel for the claimants has made the following submissions:- (i) While calculating the compensation under the head of loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal has failed to make addition in the income of the deceased towards future prospects. (ii) Under the head of loss of consortium, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- to each of the claimants, however, it should be enhanced to Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants.

#6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made hereinabove by learned counsel for the claimants and has supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal.

#7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

#8. From a bare perusal of the record and the impugned judgment and award, it is revealed that the learned Tribunal has omitted to make [2026:RJ-JP:15676] (3 of 4) [CMA-5259/2016] addition in the income towards future prospects. Therefore, in light of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, and after considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident i.e. 26 years, this Court deems it proper to make addition in the income of the deceased @40% towards future prospects.

8.1 While calculating the compensation towards loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal has determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3500/-. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased would amount to Rs.42,000/- (Rs.3500/- x 12). According to the age of deceased i.e. 26 years, the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 17, leading to income of Rs.7,14,000/- (Rs.42,000/- x 17) and after making addition in the income of the deceased @ 40% towards future prospects, the total income of the deceased would amount to Rs.9,99,600/- (Rs.7,14,000/- + Rs.2,85,600/-).

8.2 Considering the fact that deceased was married at the time of accident and had three dependents i.e. claimant Nos.1 to 3, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased will be deducted for her personal expenses. Hence, the total loss of dependency of the deceased would be Rs.6,66,400/- (Rs.9,99,600/- – Rs.3,33,200/-). Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to Rs.6,66,400/- under the head of loss of dependency. As the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.4,76,136/-, therefore, the compensation under the said head is enhanced by Rs.1,42,936/-.

#9. The second contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- only, to each to the claimants towards loss of consortium.

9.1 In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance [2026:RJ-JP:15676] (4 of 4) [CMA-5259/2016] Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is of the view that each of the claimants is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- separately, under the said head. As there are three claimants, therefore, a total sum of Rs.1,20,000/- will be awarded under this head. Since, the learned Tribunal has already awarded a total sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of consortium, therefore, the compensation under this head is enhanced by Rs.90,000/- (Rs.1,20,000-30,000).

#10. As a result of above discussions, the claimants are entitled to get enhanced compensation as under:- S.No. Particular Enhanced Amount

#2. Loss of Dependency Rs.1,42,936/- Loss of consortium Rs.90,000/- Total enhanced Amount Rs.2,32,936/-

#11. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.2,32,936/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from today. The rest of the impugned award shall remain intact.

#12. It is directed that the enhanced amount shall carry the rate of interest in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal, from the date of filing of the claim petition. The enhanced amount shall be disbursed in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

#13. The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

#14. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. SKS/54 (SANDEEP TANEJA),J