[2025:RJ-JP:25906] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4482/2008 1. Shivnandan s/o Heera Lal Jat, aged 24 years, r/o Sakhna, Tonk. 2. Ramji Lal s/o Heeralal Jat, aged 20 years, r/o Sakhna, Tonk 3. Kumari Meena d/o Heeralal Jat, aged 16 years, Minor 4. Laxman s/o Heera Lal Jat, aged 14 years, minor through Natural Guardian Big Brother Shiv Nandan s/o Heera Lal Jat, aged 24 years, r/o Sakhna, Tehsil and Distt. Tonk (Raj.) 5. Smt. Gulab Devi w/o Radha Kishan, aged 65 years, r/o Sakhna ----Claimants/Appellants Versus 1.Mohd. Aziz s/o Mohd. Jamil, r/o Moti Bagh, Tonk 2.Mustaq s/o Mukhtar Ali, r/o 222, Guljar Bagh, Tonk (Raj.) 3. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch, Aakash Talkij Kota (Raj.) ----Non-claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Avinash Dhanju on behalf of Mr. Vimal Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishipal Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 12/07/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the impugned award dated 24.06.2008 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk (hereinafter referred to as "the learned MACT/ Tribunal"), in MAC Case No.252/2006 titled as "Shivnandan & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Aziz & Ors.", whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants/appellants has been allowed and the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of [2025:RJ-JP:25906] (2 of 6) [CMA-4482/2008] Rs.7,83,100/- as compensation, along with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the claimants/appellants. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 07.01.2006, the deceased Heera Lal was traveling on his motorcycle near Dhakhiya Nala on National Highway No.12, when a Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-26UA-0022, driven at an excessive speed, collided with his motorcycle. As a result, Heera Lal suffered serious injuries and later on died. It was further pleaded that at the time of the accident, the deceased Heera Lal was 45 years of age and was earning more than Rs.35,000/- per month by working as 'A' Class Contractor in PWD, Bisalpur Project. Therefore, the legal representatives of the claimants/appellants filed the claim petition, seeking just and adequate compensation. 3. After service of notice of the claim petition, the non- claimant/respondent No.1-Mohd. Aziz and No.2-Mustaq filed their reply, denying the averments made by the claimants/appellants. They submitted that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased Heera Lal himself. They further contended that, even if any liability was attributed to them, then since vehicle was insured, therefore, the liability should be fastened upon the Insurance Company. Therefore, they prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The non-claimant/respondent No.3-Insurance Company, also filed a reply to the claim petition, denying the averments made by the claimants/appellants. The Insurance Company submitted that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. It was further contended that the owner as well as the Insurance Company of the motorcycle, the deceased was driving, [2025:RJ-JP:25906] (3 of 6) [CMA-4482/2008] were necessary parties to the claim petition. The Insurance Company also highlighted that no independent evidence was produced to prove the income of the deceased. It was further submitted that the driver did not possess a valid and effective license, and the owner had violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, thus, the Insurance Company not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants/appellants. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the eight issues. 6. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimants/appellants examined Shivnandan (AW-1), Badri Lal (AW-2) and Prahlad (AW-3) and produced documents. 7. In rebuttal, the statement of Manoj Vijay (NAW-1) was recorded on behalf of the non-claimants/respondents. 8. After hearing arguments from the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition vide the impugned award dated 24.06.2008 in favour of the claimants/appellants. While considering the income tax return of the deceased (Ex-15), compensation of Rs.7,83,100/- was awarded along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 9. The learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submitted that the deceased was A-class Contractor at PWD, Irrigation Department, Agriculture Marketing Board, as well as the Bisalpur Project. Therefore, the income of the deceased should be considered higher, than as reflected in the income tax return, Ex-15 He further submitted in the alternative that the awarded amount was inadequate and requires to be suitable modification in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [2025:RJ-JP:25906] (4 of 6) [CMA-4482/2008] the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, because the issues of future prospects and conventional heads were not properly considered. Accordingly, prayed for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 10. Per contra, Mr. Rishipal Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company, has supported the impugned award and vehemently opposed the appeal, submitting that the learned Tribunal had rightly assessed the income of the deceased Heera Lal on the basis of Ex-15, the income tax return. He further submitted that the impugned award, being based on a correct appreciation of facts and law, awarded a just compensation which did not require any interference by this Court, and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 11. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants that since the deceased Heera Lal was an A-class Contractor at PWD, Irrigation Department, Agriculture Marketing Board, as well as the Bisalpur Project, and therefore his income should have been considered as Rs.35,000/- per month, is contrary to the income tax return Ex-15, wherein the annual income of the deceased was reflected as Rs.86,315/-. Therefore, argument advanced by the learned counsel lacks merit. 13. So far as the alternative submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants that, compensation under the heads of future prospects and other conventional heads are [2025:RJ-JP:25906] (5 of 6) [CMA-4482/2008] inadequate and require enhancement in terms of the principle of law establishing by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi , have substance to some extent. 14. Therefore, 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 required to be enhanced in terms of the table herein below: Loss of Annual Income(+) Rs.86,315/- (annual income as per Ex-13)x13=Rs.11,22,095/- Future Prospects 40% (+) Rs.4,48,838/- Deduction 1/4 (-) Rs.3,92,733/- Loss of Consortium (+) Rs.2,00,000/- Loss of Estate (+) Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses (+) Rs.15,000/- Total Compensation Rs.14,08,200/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.7,83,100/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.6,25,100/- 15. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified by enhancing to Rs. 14,08,200/- from the original amount of Rs.7,83,100/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.6,25,100/- before the learned concerned Tribunal within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. The claimants are also entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount Rs.6,25,100/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 16.05.2006, till the realization of the said amount. [2025:RJ-JP:25906] (6 of 6) [CMA-4482/2008] 16. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced as per the terms indicated above. 17. The record of the learned Court below be sent back immediately. 18. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/34