[2025:RJ-JP:16104] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 630/2004 1. Geeta Devi W/o Shri Jagdish Narain Pareek, R/o Nawai, Tehsil Nawai District Tonk 2. Jagdish Narain Pareek S/o Shri Ram Niwas, R/o Nawai, Tehsil Nawai District Tonk ----Appellants Versus 1. Hari Ram S/o Shri Moti Lal Meena, R/o Village Hasoli, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk 2. Dharam Chand S/o Shri Mohan Lal Jain, R/o Village Kakore, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk 3. New India Assurance Company Ltd., Transport Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. B. B. Ojha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ritwick Dave on behalf of Mr. Virendra Dave for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Shanker Lal for respondent No.3. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 15/04/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants for enhancement of the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 02.12.2003 passed by Judge, MACT Tonk. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Sunil Kumar died in a road accident, therefore, his mother and father filed the claim petition. It was stated that deceased Sunil Kumar, 19 years old, an educated and brilliant student, was running a photography [2025:RJ-JP:16104] (2 of 4) [CMA-630/2004] shop under the name and style of Prince Photo Studio at Bonli. At the time of the accident, he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. Due to the death of Sunil Kumar, the appellants preferred claim petition claiming compensation. After service of the claim petition, the respondents filed their response/reply and submitted that the involvement of the vehicle was not proved. Alternatively, they submitted that even if liability is found, then respondent No.3- Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. The Insurance Company has also filed a separate response to the said claim petition and denied the averments made therein based on the pleadings of the parties. The learned Court below framed following issues: ^^1- vk;k foi{kh la- 1 us foi{kh la- 2 ds fgrkFkZ o fu;kstudky esa Vªd la- 5385 dks rsth] xQyr ,oa ykijokgh ls pykdj e`rd lquhy dqekj o yhykjke ds VDdj ekjh] ftlls mudh ?kVukLFky ij e`R;q gks xbZA 2- vk;k vkosndx.k izfri{khx.k la- 1 rk 3 ls vkosnu ds vuqlkj eqvkotk jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA 3- vk;k izkjfEHkd vkifRr;ksa ds vuqlkj chek dEiuh dh 'krkZsa dk mYya?ku gksus ls chek dEiuh eqvkotk vnk;xh ds fy;s ftEesnkj ugha gSA 4- vk;k cjoDr nq?kZVuk okgu pkyd ds ikl Mªkbfoax ykblsUl ugha gksus ls izfri{kh la- 3 chekdrkZ dh {kfriwfrZ dh ftEesnkjh ugha gSA 5- vk;k LdwVj dh chek dEiuh] mldk ekfyd bl izdj.k esa vko';d i{kdkj gS] ftudks i{kdkj ugh cuk;s tkus ds dkj.k izdj.k pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA 6- vuqrks"kA** 3. In order to substantiate the averments of the claim AW.1- Rameshwar Prasad, AW.2-Jagdeesh and AW.3-Gita were examined and in all nine documents were exhibited. In the rebuttal, [2025:RJ-JP:16104] (3 of 4) [CMA-630/2004] statement of NAW.1-Hariram was recorded. Thereafter, upon hearing the arguments of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.2,07,000/- vide impugned award dated 02.12.2003. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is very limited. He submits that since the deceased was 19 years old, therefore, a multiplier of 18 ought to have been adopted instead of 16. He further submits that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, the amount awarded under the heads of loss of income, future prospects, love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses be revised and enhanced in terms of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned award and submitted that there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned award. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award dated 02.12.2003, including the documents available on record. From the record of the case, it reveals that the age of the deceased Sunil Kumar was 19 years. However, while awarding the compensation, a multiplier of 16 was applied, whereas, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act and in the present facts and circumstances, a multiplier of 18 ought to have been awarded. If we examined the facts of the present case in light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the [2025:RJ-JP:16104] (4 of 4) [CMA-630/2004] matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), we find that impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is liable to be modified to the extent as under: Annual income Rs.15,00/-x 12= 1,80,00/- Income with multiplier of 18 Rs.15,00/- x 12x18 = Rs.3,24,000/- Less:1/2 deduction (Personal Expenses) Rs. 3,24,000/-x1/2=Rs.1,62,000/- Loss of Dependency Rs.1,62,000/- Future Prospects(+) 40% Rs.64,800/- Loss of Love and Affection- each appellant (2 persons) Rs.40,000/-+Rs.40,000/- =Rs.80,000/- Loss of Estate (+) Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses (+) Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.3,36,800/- Already awarded amount(-) Rs.2,07,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.3,36,800/- – Rs.2,07,000/-= Rs.1,29,800/- 7. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned MACT Court below is modified by enhancing the total awarded amount to Rs.3,36,800/- from the original amount of Rs.2,07,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.1,29,800/- before the learned concerned MACT Court within 30 days from the date of passing of this order. The claimant is also entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until the realization of the said amount. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed with no order as to cost. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/30