[2025:RJ-JP:10034] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6440/2016 Bhanwari Devi W/o Late Shri Badri Prasad Khara, Aged about 54 Years, Sunaro Ki Gali Old, Tonk, Distt. Tonk ----Appellant-claimant Versus 1. Ankush Beniwal S/o Kishan Lal Bishnoi, R/o Raypura Tehsil Abohar, Distt. Firojpur, Panjab (Driver) 2. Hanuman Bishnoi S/o Ram Chandra Bishnoi, R/o Sardarpur, Tehsil Abohar Distt. Firojpur, Panjab (Owner) 3. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Regional Manager, Regional Office At Nehru Palace Tonk Road, Jaipur 4. Indra W/o Hemant @ Hukum Singh, R/o Bada Guwara, Karigaro Ka Mohalla, Purani Tonk, Tonk ----Respondents-non-claimants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bhushan Bansal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Judgment JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :: 28/02/2025 JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 11/03/2025 1. The instant civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 05.08.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, in claim case No. 563/2012 titled as Smt. Bhanwari Devi vs. Shri Ankush Beniwal and ors. whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 4,29,844/- in favour of appellant-claimant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of [2025:RJ-JP:10034] (2 of 6) [CMA-6440/2016] claim petition till the date of realisation on account of death of her son Hemant @ Hukum Chand. 2. Necessary facts for disposal of this appeal are that on 29.05.2011 deceased Hemant @ Hukum Chand was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No.RJ-10-P-3859 along with his friend Jitendra Kumar from Hisar to Hanumangarh, near Gilla Khera, a Maruti Car bearing No.PB-15-C-9822 came in wrong side and dashed to the bus. The bus was turned down and as a result, the deceased Hemant @ Hukum Chand sustained injuries and he died during the treatment. 3. Notices of claim petition were served to the respondents. Respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner appeared before the learned Tribunal and have filed written statement stating that the accident was caused due to negligence of Driver of Bus No.RJ-10- P-3859. The Driver, owner and the Insurance Company of the bus are not impleaded as parties and the Driver of the Maruti Car has falsely been involved therefore the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company has also stated by filing written statement that insured vehicle has deceptively been involved in the accident. Owner and Driver of Bus No. RJ-10- P-3859 are necessary parties. The said accident occurred due to negligence of the bus Driver, who was not holding the valid and effective driving license therefore the claim petition may be dismissed. 4. The Tribunal has framed four issues for consideration. Before the Tribunal, Bhanwari Devi the claimant has examined herself as [2025:RJ-JP:10034] (3 of 6) [CMA-6440/2016] AW-1 and Indra as AW-2 and produced documentary evidence from Ex.1 to Ex.20. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the respondents. 5. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced by the claimants, the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,29,844/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its realization. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 05.08.2016, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant Bhanwari Devi. 7. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is not based on the norms prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore in view of the settled position of law in respect of future prospects and conventional heads, the award is required to be modified as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted that the appellant is not entitled for enhancement in compensation since the learned Tribunal after considering all the factual aspects of the matter awarded a just and reasonable compensation. [2025:RJ-JP:10034] (4 of 6) [CMA-6440/2016] 10. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 11. The manner in which the accident occurred and risk coverage by respondent No.3 is not disputed. The only question remains about the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 12. The age and multiplier as determined by the learned Tribunal is also unquestioned. 13. The learned Tribunal after elaborately discussing the factual aspects awarded a sum of Rs. 3,89,844/- for loss of income, Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 25,000/- for Filial consortium and arrived at a total compensation of Rs. 4,29,844/ along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. 14. The Tribunal ought to have followed the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in:- (i) (2017) 16 SCC 680, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (ii) (2018) 18 SCC 130 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors. However, without following the guidelines issued in the said judgments, the Tribunal mechanically awarded compensation which is not permissible. [2025:RJ-JP:10034] (5 of 6) [CMA-6440/2016] 15. Learned Tribunal has taken the income of deceased- Hemant @ Hukum Chand at Rs.3822/- per month @ 147 per day on the basis of minimum wages for an unskilled labourer prevailing at the time of accident. It is admitted that on the date of accident the minimum wages for unskilled labourer was Rs. 135 per day, considering the month of 30 days the monthly income of the deceased would be calculated at Rs.4050/- per month adding its 40% i.e. Rs.1620/- towards future prospects in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), thereby monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.5670/- per month. Since the marriage was not proved hence after deduction of 1/2 i.e. 2835/- per month from above assessed income, net income would come to Rs. 2835/- per month and loss of income comes to Rs. 2835X17x12=5,78,340/-. 16. In addition appellant-claimant is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 70,000/- with increase of its 10% in every three years under the non-pecuniary heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and thereby appellants-claimants are entitled for Rs.94,000/- towards conventional heads as per the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, the compensation amount is re-assessed as follows:- Sr. No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Award modified by this Court (in Rs.) 1. Loss of income 3,89,844/- 5,78,340/- 2. loss of estate Nil 18,000/- 3. Filial Consortium 25,000/- 48,000/- [2025:RJ-JP:10034] (6 of 6) [CMA-6440/2016] 4. Funeral Expenses 15,000/ 18,000/- Total Compensation4,29,844/- 6,62,340/- 17. The appellant-claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 6,62,340/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. 18. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal is modified to the above extent. 19. The respondent No.3 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified/enhanced award of amount before the learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the appellant-claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire modified/enhanced award with accrued interest in proportion as determined in the original award passed by the learned Tribunal, after deducting the amount already withdrawn, if any, on making appropriate and necessary application before the Tribunal. The appellant-claimant shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal, if any. The Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced amount upon production of certified copy of this judgment. 20. The appeal is partly allowed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77