[2025:RJ-JP:888] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6150/2017 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited E-8, Epip Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura Jaipur 302022 Raj. Through Its Authorised Signatory. ----Appellants Versus 1. Smt. Rinku Rajawat W/o Late Vikram Singh, R/o Village Near Gita Bhawan, Jaitaran, District Pali Raj. 2. Baby D/o Late Vikram Singh. Minor Through Natural Guardian And Mother Smt. Rinku Rajawat, W/o Late, R/o Village Near Gita Bhawan, Jaitaran, District Pali Raj. 3. Smt. Pushpa Kanwar W/o Late Prahlad Singh Jodha, R/o Village Near Gita Bhawan, Jaitaran, District Pali Raj. (Abate) (Died) 4. Ravindra Singh Jodha, S/o Late Prahlad Singh Jodha, R/o Village Near Gita Bhawan, Jaitaran, District Pali Raj. 5. Virendra Shah, S/o Ram Bhagat Shah, R/o Katsa, Police Station Baniapur, District Chhapra Bihar. 6. Rajuram, S/o Baburam Proprietor Hema Transport Company, Shop No.10 Dadi Ka Phatak, Benad Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur Raj. 7. Siraj Khan S/o Yasin Khan, R/o Khora Bisal Tehsil Amer, Jaipur Raj. 8. Lukman Khan S/o Yasin Khan R/o Khora Bisal Tehsil Amer, Jaipur Raj. 9. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited 3Rd Floor, C-98, Sangi Upsana Tower, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302001 Raj. Through Its Manager. 10. Parmedra Singh Shekhawat S/o Raghuvir Singh Shekhawat, R/o E-338, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur Raj.. 11. Raghuvir Singh Shekhawat, S/o Madan Singh, R/o E-338 Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur Raj. ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:888] (2 of 4) [CMA-6150/2017] For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akshat Choudhary Mr. Ram Singh Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni for Mr. Virendra Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 07/01/2025 1. Considered application No. 1/22 filed under Order 22 Rule 10-A CPC after death of respondent No.3- Smt. Pushpa Kanwar, an information was filed on record but no steps were taken by the Insurance Company. 2. Having considered aforesaid, the appeal stands abated qua respondent No.3, but it survives against remaining respondents. 3. Service upon respondent No.5 is dispensed with at the request of counsel for the appellant as the appeal is only on ground of excessive determination of compensation. 4. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties on merits. 5. Dis-satisfied from award dated 08.08.2017 in a MAC case No. 792/2013 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) No.1, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur in a petition under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, an award was passed in favor of claimants directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to pay a compensation of ₹21,10,000/- with interest of 6% as a compensation on death of Vikram Singh. 6. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the award only on the basis of erroneous determination of compensation and contrary to principle as laid down by Hon’ble [2025:RJ-JP:888] (3 of 4) [CMA-6150/2017] Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. 7. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for claimants on the ground that after passing of the award the claim was disbursed to the claimants and nothing survives in this petition. He specifically referred the order dated 12.12.2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein no dispute was raised with regard to involvement of vehicle and also the credential of deceased. He further submits that deceased was a Government servant and was entitled for 50% of future prospects and the Tribunal has rightly decided the issue in favor of claimants. 8. Having gone through the order dated 12.12.2022 and also the impugned judgment of learned Tribunal on issue No.4 wherein the learned Tribunal has found that the deceased was working in Bosch Limited and his confirmation letter in the company was exhibited as Ex.12 along with salary certificate and pay slip from Ex.13 to 17. Even the claimants have managed to examine AW-3 Chandan Singh to prove these documents. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on age has found that the deceased belonged to age bracket of 26-30 years and applied the multiplier in accordance with judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr AIR 2009 (6) SCC 121. The Tribunal after considering material placed on record has determined the annual income of deceased as ₹1,20,000/- whereas the claimants have claimed monthly income as ₹55915/- p.m. on the basis of material placed on record. The Tribunal has determined the income lower than the documents [2025:RJ-JP:888] (4 of 4) [CMA-6150/2017] produced by the claimants. The certificate Ex. 13 clearly indicate that monthly income of the deceased was ₹26531.25/- p.m. Similarly, the pay slips were also placed on record which indicate monthly emolument of 55,915/- p.m. 9. Considering the monthly income and confirmation letter of deceased, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has already determined the income of deceased on lower side than the material placed on record, therefore, the Insurance Company has no right to challenge such quantum in garb of the defence available to the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no fault in determination of compensation and same is to be considered as just compensation. 10. In view of aforesaid, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6150/2017 is hereby dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. 11. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /84