[2025:RJ-JP:284] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1077/2014 National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office At Alwar, Having Its Regional Office At Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Sunita W/o Late Shri Anand Narain, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 2-Ka 381 Shivaji Park, Alwar (Rajasthan) 2. Diwakar S/o Late Shri Anand Narain, Aged About 22 Years, R/o 2-Ka 381 Shivaji Park, Alwar (Rajasthan) 3. Nikhil S/o Late Shri Anand Narain, Aged About 19 Years, R/o 2-Ka 381 Shivaji Park, Alwar (Rajasthan) 4. Bhagwan Sahay S/o Shri Panna Lal, (Deceased Deleted) R/o 2-Ka 381 Shivaji Park, Alwar (Rajasthan) 5. Ramkali W/o Bhagwan Sahay, Aged About 82 Years, R/o 2-Ka 381 Shivaji Park, Alwar (Rajasthan) 6. Hukum Chand Kumhar S/o Shri Moti Lal Kumhar, R/o Chhilodi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Driver Of The Vehicle Dumper Truck No. Rj 02 G 3519) 7. Naresh Chand Dwivedi S/o Shri Vishambhar Dayal Dwivedi, R/o 1/4 Maya Sadan Vivekanand Nagar, Alwar (Owner Of The Vehicle Dumper Truck No. Rj 02 G 3519) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Raj Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sweta Soni for Mr. Manish Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 02/01/2025 1. Considered submissions of learned counsel for parties on merits of the case. [2025:RJ-JP:284] (2 of 3) [CMA-1077/2014] 2. Aggrieved from award dated 19.11.2013 in claim case No. 537/2008 passed by learned MACT, Alwar, instant appeal is preferred by appellant insurance company on the ground of quantum. 3. Learned counsel for respondent while referring judgment of Constitution Bench in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, submitted that as per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, quantum is justifiable rather same is lesser than present trend of awarding compensation on death of any person having same age group and income bracket. 4. Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company submitted that learned Tribunal has determined the compensation without considering the fact that after death of deceased Anand Narayan, his wife got appointment on compassionate ground in place of deceased Anand Narayan and moreover further retiral benefits were granted to legal heirs and same were not deducted from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. She also submitted that learned Tribunal has not considered that there was no proof for enhancement income and the Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹28,58,044/-. 5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the determination of income based on last pay certificate. As per last pay certificate, monthly income of deceased was ₹18565/- and age group was 45-50 years. Learned Tribunal after considering the judgment in case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 has used multiplier of 13 and further [2025:RJ-JP:284] (3 of 3) [CMA-1077/2014] after considering the evidence of NAW-1 Prem Narayan has also considered enhancement of 30 percent as future prospects. 6. It is also on record that deceased was not an income tax payee person, who was working as Assistant in post office, at the time of death. The total 1/4th was deducted towards personal expenses and after deduction of ₹52920/- the annual income was calculated as ₹1,58,760/- and learned Tribunal after considering said income has determined compensation of ₹20,63,880/- on account of loss of income along with 30 percent as future prospects calculated at ₹6,19,164/-. 7. After going through the material placed on record and also the justification on issue No.2 by the Tribunal, I am of considered view that Tribunal has not committed any error while calculating the income and determining compensation based on material placed on record, therefore there is no perversity. Nothing contrary either to material placed on record or any law of the land, thus the award is a just compensation and there is no scope of interference. 8. Accordingly, the appeal along with pending application, if any, stands dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /98