Guardian, R/o Amarpura, Post Kishanpura, P.s. Jawaja v. Narendra Singh S/o Moti Sngh Chauhan, R/o Nayanagar

Smt. Patasi S/o Suwa Singh, aged 53 years, Appellant No. 2 To 6 Are Minor Through Their Natural Guardian, R/o Amarpura, Post Kishanpura, P.s. Jawaja. ----Claimants/Appellants Versus

1. Narendra Singh S/o Moti Sngh Chauhan, R/o Nayanagar, Tehsil Mandalgarh, Distt. Bhilwara. (Driver Of The Tractor No. Rj-06-R-2321)

2. Smt. Birdi W/o Moti Singh Chauhan, R/o Nayanagar, Tehsil Mandalgarh, Distt. Bhilwara. (Owner Of The Tractor No. Rj-06-R-2321)

3. H.d.f.c. E.r.g.o. General Insurance Co. Ltd., 6 Floor Lila Business Park, Andheri East Mumbai Having Its Branch Office At 3Rd Flr, Sanghi Upasana Tower, C-Scheme, Sub- hash Mg, Jaipur Gpo, Jaipur- 302001. (Insurer Of The Tractor No. Rj-06-R-2321) ----Non-Claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravi Singh for Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta Ms. Shreya Khandal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjali Assat for Mr. Virendra Agrawal Ms. Sara Rajora [2025:RJ-JP:28952] (2 of 6) [CMA-2945/2012] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 30/07/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant under Sec- tion 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988") for enhancement of compensation, assailing the award dated 21.06.2012 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar (hereinafter to be referred to as the "learned Tribunal") in Claim Case No.77/11, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant was partly allowed, awarding compensa- tion of Rs.5,89,140/- along with interest @ 6%.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that on 10.10.2010, the deceased-Bheru Singh was returning to his home on his M80 and when he reached near Ramkheda Dha- nar, a tractor bearing registration No.R.J.-06-R-2321 driven by the non-claimant/respondent No.1-Narendra Singh in a rash and neg- ligent manner and in excessive speed, collided with the M-80. As a result of the accident, the deceased died on the spot.

3. It was pleaded in the claim petition that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 32 years old and was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month as a labourer. On account of the said accident and death of Late Bheru Singh, the claimants had filed a claim pe- tition seeking just and proper compensation.

4. Notice of the claim petition was issued to the non-claimants/ respondents No.1 and 2, who filed a detailed reply, contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. They further submitted that the tractor in question was [2025:RJ-JP:28952] (3 of 6) [CMA-2945/2012] insured with non-claimant/respondent No. 3 (the Insurance Com- pany), and, if any liability is found, the same may be fastened upon the Insurance Company; consequently, they should not be held liable to pay any compensation to the claimants/appellants.

5. Notice of the claim petition was issued to the non-claimant/ respondent No.3-Insurance Company, and they filed a detailed re- ply to the claim petition and submitted that the driver of the in- sured vehicle, Tractor, was not having a valid and effective license, and the claimants filed an inflated claim. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tri- bunal framed four issues.

7. In order to substantiate the averments of the claim petition, the claimant examined AW-1 Smt. Sunita and produced docu- ments including Ex.1-FIR, Ex.2-Charge-sheet, Ex.3-Site Plan, Ex.4 and Ex.-5 Notice under Section 133, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Ex.- 6-Notice under Section 134, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Ex.-7 Notice under Section 133, Ex.8-Post-Mortem Report, Ex.-9 Driving license, Ex.-10 RC and Ex.11-Insurance Policy.

8. In rebuttal, despite being granted an opportunity, the non- claimant/respondents have not led any evidence.

9. After hearing arguments of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal, while assessing the age of the deceased to be 35 years and income as 3,000/- per month and while applying the multiplier of 16 has awarded compensation of Rs.5,89,140/-.

10. Being aggrieved of which, the claimants/appellants have pre- ferred the present appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:28952] (4 of 6) [CMA-2945/2012]

11. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 10% of the income as In- come Tax that is as Rs.59,900/- and erred in applying the multi- plier of 16. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has not considered the future prospects and the amount awarded under the conventional head is also meager; therefore, the impugned award may be suitably modified, and the amount so awarded un- der the impugned award may kindly be enhanced.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company opposed the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the claimants-appellants and submitted that after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties and law, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation. The amount so awarded is just and proper, and hence, does not call for any inter- ference by this Court, and the appeal of the claimant/appellants may kindly be dismissed.

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

14. From perusal of the record of the case, it is evident that the learned Tribunal assessed the age of deceased to be 35 years and income of the deceased Rs.3,000/- per month. It is reflected from the impugned order that the learned Tribunal has erred in deduct- ing 10%, amounting to Rs. 59,900/-, under the head of Income Tax.

15. It is also evident from the impugned award that, while grant- ing the compensation, the future prospects have not been consid- [2025:RJ-JP:28952] (5 of 6) [CMA-2945/2012] ered by the learned Tribunal, and the amount awarded under the conventional head is also significantly less. Therefore, if the facts of the case are 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.

16. After taking an overall consideration of the above facts, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under the im- pugned award is required to be extended to some extent, and the same is enhanced as per the table made hereinunder:- Loss of income Rs.3,000/-x12x16=5,76,000/- Deduction(Personal ex- penses) (-) (1/5th) (-)Rs.1,15,200/- Future prospects @40% (+) Rs.1,84,320/- Loss of Love, Affection and Consortium (Rs.40,000x7) Rs.2,80,000/- Loss of Estate Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total Awarded Amount Rs.9,55,120/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.5,89,140/- Enhanced amount of compen- sation Rs.3,65,980/-

17. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal qua findings recorded under issue No.4 is hereby modified, and the awarded amount is enhanced to Rs.9,55,120/- from the original amount of Rs.5,89,140/-. The respondents are directed to deposit the en- hanced amount of Rs.3,65,980/- before the learned Motor Acci- dent Claims Tribunal within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. The claimants are is also entitled to get interest on the [2025:RJ-JP:28952] (6 of 6) [CMA-2945/2012] enhanced amount Rs.3,65,980/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until the realization of the said amount. On deposition of the enhanced amount, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced amount to the claimants on pro-rata basis in terms of the award.

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

19. Record of the court below be sent back for necessary compli- ance.

20. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. SOURAV /160-S (MANEESH SHARMA),J