Madhopur (Raj.) vs Village Manpur, Police Station Bowli, Ditt. Sawai Madhopur

: Mr. Lakshaya Kumar Sharma, Mr. Sharas Kumar Yadav & Ms. Pratisha Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singhal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order [2025:RJ-JP:19946] (2 of 7) [CMA-4640/2018] 12/05/2025

1. Instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter is to be referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’) with a prayer to enhance the compensation amount as awarded by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) (in short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide its judgment dated

29.05.2018 in Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Case No.91/2017. The Claims Tribunal vide its judgment dated 29.05.2018 has awarded the total compensation amount as Rs.9,21,064/- to the claimants/appellants.

2. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that while determining the compensation amount, the Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6030/- per month by taking into consideration the daily wages as Rs.201/- per day, whereas, as per the notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan at that relevant time, the daily wages were Rs.207/- per day. Hence, this compensation amount is required to be calculated treating the daily wages income of the deceased as Rs.207/- per day. Learned counsel also submits that the total deduction towards the personal expenditure of the deceased has been made as one third (1/3) of the income, whereas, the deduction should be one forth (1/4) looking to the number of dependents of the deceased. Learned counsel also submits that the compensation amount be allowed towards the loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium on notional heads in view of the settled law of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi [2025:RJ-JP:19946] (3 of 7) [CMA-4640/2018] and Ors. reported in (2017) 18 S.C.R. 100 and Seema Rani & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2323/2025 decided on 11.02.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2- Insurance Company has opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the claimants/appellants and submits that the deduction made by the Claims Tribunal in the head of the personal expenditure is justified and the compensation amount awarded towards the notional heads are also fair and adequate.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company fairly admits that the daily wages at the relevant time were Rs.207/- per day.

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

7. Since the learned counsel for the respondent No.2- Insurance Company has not denied this fact that the daily wages prescribed at the relevant time in view of the Notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan were Rs.207/- per day, hence, the income of the deceased has to be determined by considering the daily wages rate as Rs.207/- per day.

8. The deduction towards the personal expenses as claimed by learned counsel for the claimants/appellants should be one forth (1/4) and asserted by the learned counsel for the respondent Company that it should be one third (1/3) as ordered by the Claims Tribunal.

9. The learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submitted that since there are four dependents, including wife and [2025:RJ-JP:19946] (4 of 7) [CMA-4640/2018] three sons of the deceased, the deduction is to be made at the rate of one forth (1/4).

10. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that all the three sons were major, therefore, they cannot be treated to be dependents and, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has rightly deducted one third (1/3) as personal expenses.

11. In case of Seema Rani (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in Para No.10 has observed as under:- involved “10. Adverting to the facts at hand, on a perusal of the statement of Shashi Kumar, the son of the deceased (Appellant No.2 herein), annexed as Annexure P6, was working at a petrol pump, while the other temporary son was employment opportunities only. Both of them were residing with the deceased. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that they were self-sufficient or independent of the deceased. Similarly, applying the exposition in Birender (supra), there is no reason to exclude a married daughter from compensation. Therefore, in view of this, the High Court erred in excluding these dependants.”

12. On perusal of the evidence of PW-1 Bhuri Devi, this Court finds that she has asserted that after the death of her husband, the responsibility of all the sons is shifted on her and there is no query in this regard by the respondent-Insurance Company to disbelieve the said assertion made by the witness- Bhuri Devi. Her statement clearly speaks that the responsibility of all the three sons after the death of her husband, shifted on her, which shows that the sons are the dependents of the deceased.

13. The Claims Tribunal has given a finding that since three sons of the deceased are major, they cannot be treated to be [2025:RJ-JP:19946] (5 of 7) [CMA-4640/2018] dependents, is contrary to the view and observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Seema Rani (supra). Hence, all the three sons of the deceased shall be treated to be dependents of the deceased.

14. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to compensation towards the notional heads in para 54 has observed as under:- Rs.1,00,000/- “54. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequences of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revision should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would [2025:RJ-JP:19946] (6 of 7) [CMA-4640/2018] be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.”

15. In view of the case laws referred and discussion made above, the judgment /award dated 29.05.2018 is modified as under:- Income of the claimants/appellants is determined as under:- 207X30= Rs.6210/- + Future Prospects 10% i.e. Rs.621/- = Total= Rs.6831/- per month S.No. Compensation Heads Amount Awarded

8. Yearly future prospects income with 6831X12= Rs. 81972/- Deduction (1/4) 1/4 of Rs.81972/-=Rs.20493/- The total Loss of Income 61479X9=Rs.553311/- Loss of Estate Rs.16500/- Loss of Funeral Expenses Rs.16500/- Loss of Consortium Rs.1,86,000/- Medical Bills-Treatment Rs.313488/- Attendant during period of treatment Rs.25,000/- Total (S.No.3 to 8) Rs.11,10,799/-

16. The claimants/appellants would be entitled for the interest on the total compensation amount as modified by this Court, as per the terms and conditions fixed by the Claims Tribunal.

17. The amount which has already been paid, shall be liable to be deducted. [2025:RJ-JP:19946] (7 of 7) [CMA-4640/2018]

18. Accordingly, this civil misc. appeal is disposed of as above.

19. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back. ARTI SHARMA /68 (GANESH RAM MEENA),J