[2025:RJ-JP:4237] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6092/2017. 1. Mahaveer Prasad Jangid S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Jangid, R/o Village Sewa, Tehsil & District Sikar Raj. 2. Savitri Devi W/o Mahaveer Prasad Jandig, R/o Village Sewa, Tehsil & District Sikar Raj. ----Claimants-Appellants Versus 1. Ghanshyam Soni S/o Shri Noparam Soni, R/o Village Bathoth, Police Station Nechhwa, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar Raj. Driver of Vehicle Bus No. Rj-21-Pa -0812 2. Gopal Singh S/o Shri Sanwar Mal, R/o Village Bhuriya Ki Dhani Tan Patota, Police Station Nechhwa, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar Raj. Registered of Vehicle Bus No. Rj-21-Pa-0812 3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Local Branch Managerm, Sikar Raj. Insurance of Vehicle No. Rj-21- PA-0812 ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Budhiprakash, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Rajani Vyas, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 30/01/2025 : Instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimants-appellants against the impugned judgment & award dated 18.08.2017 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C. Case No.109/20214 titled as Mahaveer Prasad & another Vs. Ghanshyam Soni & Others, whereby ld. Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition & awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.6,84,164/- in favour of the claimants-appellants on account of death of one Subhash, in a road accident took place on 12.01.2014. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants contends that at the time of alleged incident, the deceased was 22 years of age and working as skilled farmer/labour/carpenter. Counsel further contends that ld. Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of [2025:RJ-JP:4237] (2 of 4) [CMA-6092/2017] the deceased @ Rs.189/- per day only for 26-days, whereas the income of deceased should have been assessed Rs.189/- per day for 30-days. Counsel contends that the ld. Tribunal has wrongly awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rs.20,000/- each) towards consortium, whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- per claimant. Counsel also contends that the ld. Tribunal had not awarded any amount under the head of loss of estate & multiplier has also been applied wrongly. Counsel also contends that overall assessment of the compensation is too low, highly unreasonable and against well settled law governing quantum of compensation, hence, the impugned judgment & award of the ld. Tribunal may be modified. In support of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants, has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, AIR 2009 Sc 3104, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanuram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and in New India Assurance Company & Others Vs. Somwati & Others, MANU/SC/0674/2020, wherein the multiplier of 18 has been specified for the age group of 21 to 25 and reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely ‘loss of estate’, ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’ held to be Rs.15,000/-, 40,000/- each claimant & Rs.15,000/- respectively. The parents, wife and children of the deceased are also entitled to get the award under the head of ‘loss of consortium’. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the submissions made herein-above & prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:4237] (3 of 4) [CMA-6092/2017] Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the submissions made at bar, gone through the impugned judgment & award passed by ld. Tribunal & perused the judgments cited herein above. Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Laxmidhar Nayak & Others Vs. Jugalkishore & Others, 2018 (1) R.A.R. 45 S.C. and in Laxmidevi & Others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar & Others, 2008 (2) T.A.C. 394 S.C., has also held that the wages/income of the deceased should be calculated for 30-days. The ld. Tribunal had already awarded Rs.6,19,164/- towards ‘loss of income’, Rs.40,000/- towards ‘‘loss of consortium’ & Rs.25,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’. In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Laxmidhar Nayak (supra), Laxmidevi (supra), Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (Supra) & Somwati (supra), the appellants are entitled to get Rs.8,57,304/- towards ‘loss of income’ by calculating it for 30-days, includes 40% future prospects, alongwith Rs.40,000/- each claimant towards ‘loss of consortium’, Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’ & Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’. On the basis of the aforesaid facts & analysis, this Court is of the opinion that the just compensation to be awarded to both the appellants under the aforesaid heads ought to have been as under:- 1. Loss of Income =Rs.8,57,304/- (189x30x12x18-50%+40%) 3. Loss of consortium =Rs.80,000/-(Rs.40,000/-x2) 4. Loss of Estate =Rs.15,000/- 5. Funeral Expenses =Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.9,67,304/- [2025:RJ-JP:4237] (4 of 4) [CMA-6092/2017] In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned award dated 18.08.2017 is liable to be modified as above and the appellants are entitled to be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.9,67,304/- instead of Rs.6,84,164/- alongwith interest 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition as per the terms of ld. Tribunal. The compensation amount received by the appellants-in pursuant to the award dt. 18.08.2017 passed by ld. Tribunal shall be adjusted in the present order & award and the appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J ASHOK/