[2025:RJ-JP:28470] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2728/2007 1. Smt. Badam wife of Late Shri Ratan Lal aged 42 years. 2. Kum. Shimla daughter of Late Shri Ratan Lal, aged 18 years. 3. Mukesh son of Late Shri Ratan Lal, aged 16 years. 4. Manti daughter of Late Shri Ratan Lai, aged 12 years. 5. Kum Hansa daughter of Late Shri Ratan aged 12 years Lal. 6. Banwari son of Late Shri Ratan Lal, aged 9 years. 7. Kum. Murti son of Late Shri Ratan Lal, aged 7 years. 8. Smt. Manphooli wife of Shri Kalyan Keer, aged 69 years. No.3 to 7 minors through their natural Guardian and mother Smt, Badam wife of Late Shri Ratan Lal All are residents of Janbaj Ka Bandha. Tonk (Raj.) ........Claimants/Appellants Versus 1. Ram Lakhan son of Shri Kishori Lal Meena, resident of Janira, Bamanwas District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) (Driver) 2. Shyam Lal son of Shri Badri Prasad resident of Kaswa Tehsil Nadoti District Karauli (Raj.) (Owner) 3. New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur through Regional Manager. ....Non-Claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lokesh Parihar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 28/07/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants- appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act of 1988") for enhancement of compensation, assailing the award dated 11.04.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, (Fast Track) No.2, Tonk (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), and (hereinafter to be referred to as the "learned Tribunal") in M.A.C. No.1145/2004(773/2003), whereby the claim petition filed by the [2025:RJ-JP:28470] (2 of 6) [CMA-2728/2007] claimants/appellants has been partly allowed and a compensation of Rs.2,80,400/- was awarded to the claimants/appellants along with interest @ 6% p.a. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that on 17.04.2003, deceased-Ratan Lal along with Nehanu Lal, Shri Lal, Raghuveer and Naurang were traveling to Delhi in a truck, bearing registration No.RJ-34-G-0059 to sell vegetables. The Truck was being driven by the driver-non-claimant/respondent No.1-Ram Lakhan in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed. Because of the said rash and negligent driving, the truck bearing registration No.RJ-34-G-0059 got overturned and on account of the said accident, Nehanu Lal and Ratan Lal lost their lives and other persons, namely, Shri Lal, Raghuveer and Naurang sustained serious injuries. 3. It was pleaded in the claim petition that at the time of the accident, the deceased-Ratan Lal was 40 years of age and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month by doing cultivation and labour work. In consequence of the said accident, the claimants/appellants had filed a claim petition seeking just and proper compensation. 4. Notice of the claim petition was issued to the non-claimant/respondents No.1(driver) and No.2(owner) and they filed their reply on 20.09.2004, wherein they have denied the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the driver had to apply the brakes suddenly, causing the Truck to overturn. 5. Notice of the claim petition was served upon the non- claimant/respondent No.3-Insurance Company, and the Insurance Company filed a detailed reply to the claim petition, wherein they [2025:RJ-JP:28470] (3 of 6) [CMA-2728/2007] have denied the averments of the claim petition and submitted that the driver of the insured Truck was not having a valid and effective license. Further stated that the accident occurred with the Truck bearing No.RJ-25-G-0059 and not from the Truck bearing No.RJ-34-G-0059. Therefore, the Insurance Company may not be held liable to pay any compensation to the claimant/appellants. 6. That on the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues. 7. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimants examined AW-1 Badam, AW-2 Laduram, AW-3 Naurang and AW-4 Shri Lal and AW-5 Raghuveer and produced documents from Ex.1 to Ex.43. 8. In rebuttal, the non-claimant/respondents have examined NAW-1 Chandrashekhar. 9. After hearing arguments of the of learned counsel for the respective parties, while deciding the claim petition No.1145/2004, the learned Tribunal consider the age of the deceased-Ratan Lal to be around 35-40 years and monthly income Rs.1,800/- per month and awarded a sum of Rs.2,80,400/- along with interest @ 6%. 10. Being aggrieved of which, the claimants/appellants have preferred the present appeal. 11. The learned counsel for the claimants/appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding an inadequate amount of compensation. 12. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in making deduction of 1/3rd [2025:RJ-JP:28470] (4 of 6) [CMA-2728/2007] amount while overlooking the number of claimants in the present matter. Looking to the number of claimants, the learned counsel submits that in the light of the judgment Sarla Verma v. DTC reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, deductions of 1/5th ought to have been made instead of 1/3rd. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has not considered the aspect of future prospects and the amount awarded under the conventional head is also meagre; therefore, the impugned award may be suitably modified and the amount so awarded under the impugned award may kindly be enhanced. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company opposed the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered the facts & law in the correct perspective and the impugned award does not suffer from any legal infirmity, and the amount so awarded is just and proper, and hence, does not call for any interference or enhancement by this Court. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company prays for dismissal of the present appeal. 14. Heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. From perusal of the record of the case, it is evident that the learned Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as around 35-40 years and the income of the deceased as Rs.1,800/- per month. It is reflected from the impugned order that while making deductions of personal expenses, the learned Tribunal has [2025:RJ-JP:28470] (5 of 6) [CMA-2728/2007] incorrectly deducted 1/3rd instead of 1/5th, looking to the number of claimants. 16. It is also evident from the impugned order that while granting the compensation, the future prospects of the deceased has not been considered 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. 17. After taking an overall consideration of the above facts, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under the impugned award is required to be extended to some extent and the same is enhanced as per the table made hereinunder:- Loss of income Rs.1,800/-x12x15=3,24,000/- Deduction(Personal expenses) (-) (1/5th) (-)Rs.64,800/- Future prospects @40% (+) Rs.1,03,680/- Loss of Love, Affection and Consortium(40,000x8) Rs.3,20,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Awarded Amount Rs.7,12,880/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.2,80,400/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.4,32,480/- 18. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.7,12,880/- from the original amount of Rs.2,80,400/-. The respondents are directed to deposit the [2025:RJ-JP:28470] (6 of 6) [CMA-2728/2007] enhanced amount of Rs.4,32,480/- before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. The claimants are also entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount of Rs.4,32,480/- 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 a pro-rata basis in terms of the award. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced as per the terms indicated above. 20. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /75