HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No v. 1. Ramjilal Meena S/o

Judgment

1. Ramjilal Meena S/o Shri Bhairuram Meena, R/o Village Meeno Ki Dhani, Tan Sarjoli, Tehsil Janwarangarh, District Jaipur (Driver And Registered Owner Vehicle Truck No. RJ14-GH-7816)

2. National Insurance Company Limited, Through Regional Manager, Regional Office, Beema Bhawan, Near Ambedkar Circle Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur. (Insurer Company Vehicel Truck No. RJ14-GH-7816) ----Non-claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Gourav Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avadhesh Kumar Purohit HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA 11/07/2025 Order

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation amount which has been awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide judgment and award dated 03.06.2022 in Motor Accident Claim No.769/2017, whereby the Tribunal has allowed compensation to the claimant appellant to the tune of Rs.25,59,205/- including compensation to the tune of Rs.17,14,284/- under the head of loss of income.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant appellant preferred the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 [2025:RJ-JP:25760] (2 of 5) [CMA-2706/2022] & 40 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 with the averments that on

02.07.2017, when the claimant appellant-Naresh Chand was returning to his home Sanganer Pratap Nagar from Kaveri Path Mansarovar after attending a marriage ceremony and reached near Pradan Vatika, New Sanganer Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur, suddendly a truck bearing registration No. RJ14-GH-7816 which was being driven rashly and negligently hit his motorcycle from the back resulting into serious injuries. The respondent/s filed reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made therein. The claimant prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.73,30,000/-.

3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed as many as four issues and recorded evidence from both sides and certain documents were also got exhibited. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal, vide judgment dated

03.06.2022 awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.25,59,205/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. w.e.f. date of filing of claim petition i.e. 20.07.2017.

4. Learned counsel for the claimant appellant submits that the Tribunal, while awarding the compensation has not allowed the compensation by including the future prospects in the income assessed. He further submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.; Civil Appeal No. 3483/2008, decided on

15.04.2009, has observed that a claimant is entitled for future prospects also at the rate of 10% of the income. [2025:RJ-JP:25760] (3 of 5) [CMA-2706/2022]

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company though opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the claimant-appellant, but could not rebut the legal position regarding entitlement to compensation by adding future prospects.

6. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material available on record.

7. The only submission made by learned counsel for the claimant appellant is that the claimant appellant has not been allowed the compensation under the head of future prospects i.e. 10% of the amount assessed as loss of income.

8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) has categorically held that a claimant is entitled for future prospects also at the rate of 10%. Hon'ble Apex Court vide para 10-11 has observed as follows:- "10. Generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation. The question is whether actual income at the time of death should be taken as the income or whether any addition should be made by taking note of future prospects. In Susamma Thomas, this Court held that the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand (annual contribution to the dependants); and that where the deceased had a stable job, the court can take note of the prospects of the future and it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the actual income of the deceased at the time of death. In that case, the salary of the deceased, aged 39 years at the time of death, was Rs.1032/- per month. Having regard to the evidence in regard to future prospects, this Court was of the view that the higher estimate of monthly income could be made at Rs.2000/- as gross income [2025:RJ-JP:25760] (4 of 5) [CMA-2706/2022] before deducting the personal living expenses. The decision in Susamma Thomas was followed in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav [1996 (3) SCC 179], where the deceased was getting a gross salary of Rs.1543/- per month. Having regard to the future prospects of promotions and increases, this Court assumed that by the time he retired, his earning would have nearly doubled, say Rs.3000/-. This court took the average of the actual income at the time of death and the projected income if he had lived a normal life period, and determined the monthly income as Rs.2200/- per month. In Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India [2003 (3) SCC 148], as against the actual salary income of Rs.42,000/- per annum, (Rs.3500/- per month) at the time of accident, this court assumed the income as Rs.45,000/- per annum, having regard to the future prospects and career advancement of the deceased who was 40 years of age. In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the 11. income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words ‘actual salary’ should be read as ‘actual salary less tax’]. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances." [2025:RJ-JP:25760] (5 of 5) [CMA-2706/2022]

9. In the present case, the claimant has been allowed compensation under the head of loss of income to the tune of Rs.17,14,284/- and 10% of which comes to Rs.1,71,428/-.

10. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the claimant appellant and the settled law with regard to future prospects and taking into consideration the age of the claimant/appellant, the present appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.1,71,428/- under the head of future prospects also.

11. Accordingly this appeal is partly allowed.

12. The appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional compensation to the tune of Rs.1,71,428/- under the head of future prospects.

13. The award as passed by the Tribunal is modified and the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced with an additional amount of Rs.1,71,428/-. The claimant/appellant shall also be entitled for interest on the additional enhanced amount on the same terms and conditions as per the award of the Tribunal.

14. The enhanced amount alongwith interest be kept in FDR in the name of the claimant/appellant for a period of three years. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Gaurav Srivastava /105