[2025:RJ-JP:20110] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3400/2018 1. Bhanwari Devi W/o Late Dharam Chand, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Narwar, Tehsil And Distt. Ajmer 2. Laxman S/o Late Dharam Chand, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Narwar, Tehsil And Distt. Ajmer 3. Pooran S/o Late Dharam Chand, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Narwar, Tehsil And Distt. Ajmer 4. Shivraj S/o Late Dharam Chand, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Narwar, Tehsil And Distt. Ajmer ----Claimants Appellants Versus 1. Jalam Singh S/o Late Ishwar Singh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village Chhaparwada, Tehsil Dudu, Distt. Jaipur At Present R/o Raghunath Colony, Malpura Road, Dudu, Distt. Jaipur (Driver Truck Trailor No. Rj-06-Ga-6576) 2. Skylite Logistics Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office At 15, Cosmo Colony, Amarpali Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Director (Owner Truck Trailor No. Rj-06-Ga-6576) 3. L And T General Insurance Company Limited, Corporate Office At 601, 602, 6Th Floor, Trade Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051 Maharashtra Through Its Manager (Insurer Truck Trailor No. Rj-06-Ga- 6576) …...Non Claimant Respondents 4. Hajari S/o Late Lakha, Aged About 77 Years, R/o Village Narwar, Tehsil And Dist. Ajmer 5. Gulab Devi W/o Hajari, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Village Narwar, Tehsil And Dist. Ajmer ----performa Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjali Assat Ms. Shara Pradaya Rajora HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA [2025:RJ-JP:20110] (2 of 4) [CMA-3400/2018] Order 13/05/2025 1. Instant civil misc. petition has been file by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act of 1988') with a prayer to enhance the compensation amount as awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (in short 'the Claims Tribunal') vide its judgment dated 22.01.2018 in Claim Petition No.40/2013. The Claims Tribunal vide its judgment/award dated 22.01.2018 has awarded the total compensation amount as Rs.25,79,490/- to the claimants/appellants. 2. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that monthly income determined by the Claims Tribunal on the basis of evidence is Rs.22,478/- per month, thus, yearly income would be Rs.2,69,736/-. Learned counsel further submits that the Claims Tribunal while calculating the loss of income has added the future prospects and, thereafter, deducted the tax part. Though, the tax can only be asserted on the yearly income of the deceased without adding future prospects. Learned counsel also submits that the yearly income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,69,736/- and the only taxable income is Rs.19,736/- on which the tax amount would be about Rs.1900/- per year i.e. 10%. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased was a government servant and he could have saved the tax by resorting the various Insurance Policies and, therefore, the deduction under the head of tax is illegal and unjustified. Learned counsel also submits that the claimants/appellants have not been allowed the adequate [2025:RJ-JP:20110] (3 of 4) [CMA-3400/2018] compensation towards the notional heads, including the loss of consortium. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company submits that since the total annual income of the deceased was falling in the slab one where the assessee was to pay 10% tax. Learned counsel does not dispute the claim of the claimants/appellants under the notional heads. 4. Heard. 5. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record. 6. The monthly income of the deceased assessed by the Claims Tribunal was Rs.22,478/- and the total yearly income comes as Rs.2,69,736/-. The Claims Tribunal has deducted the tax after adding the future prospects in the yearly income, whereas, it is settled law that tax could only be deducted on the actual yearly income and not by adding the future prospects. The deceased was a Government Servant and normally a Government Servant saves the tax part by resorting various Insurances Policies or other mode. 7. In the present case, the total taxable income of the deceased comes about Rs.19,000/- only and he could have easily saved the tax by resorting the mode of tax savings, hence, deduction of the tax as ordered by the Claims Tribunal is unjustified. 8. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, this Court deems just and proper to modify the order dated [2025:RJ-JP:20110] (4 of 4) [CMA-3400/2018] 22.01.2018 passed by the Claims Tribunal with regard to compensation amount as under:- S.No. Compensation Heads Amount awarded Total 1. Loss of Income (A) 22478X12X11 29,67,096/- 2. Deduction(B) 1/4(29,67,096X3/4) 22,25,322/- 3. Future Prospects(C) 15% 3,33,798/- 4. Loss of Consortium(D) 40,000X6 2,40,000/- 5. Funeral Expenses(E) 15,000/- 15,000/- 6. Loss of Estate(F) 15,000/- 15,000/- Total (B+C+D+E+F) Total= 28,29,120/- 9. As a result, the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants/appellants by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.2,49,630. 10. The other terms and conditions with regard to interest would remain same as per the original judgment of the Claims Tribunal. 11. Accordingly, the present civil misc. appeal is disposed of as above. 12. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /68