[2025:RJ-JP:25328] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2267/2006 1. Smt. Kanchan w/o Late Nara, aged about 40 years 2. Master Salim s/o Late Nara, aged 12 years 3. Master Firoz s/o Late Nara, aged about 10 years 4. Kumari Saeeda d/o Late Nara, aged about 8 years (Appellants No.2 to 4, minor, through their natural guardian mother Smt. Kanchan, appellant No.1) All Meharat, r/o village Kesarpura Tehsil Masooda Via Kharwa district Ajmer ----Claimants/Appellants Versus 1. Irfan Mohammad s/o Shri Khalif Khan Musalman, r/o village Noondri Mahendratan, District Ajmer (Driver of the Marshal Jeep No.RJ-14-6C-0512) 2. Radheshyam Joshi s/o Surajmal Sharma, r/o 6/52, Vidyadhar Nagar, Sector No.6, Jaipur 302012 presently residing at 305, Wamsi Paradise, Balacumpet Road No.1, Dharam Karan Road, Amarpet Hyderabad 5000161 (Andhra Pradesh)(Regd. Owner of the Jeep Marshal Jeep No.RJ-14-6C-0512) through power of attorney holder Yudhishthir Sharma s/o Ram Gopal Sharma, r/o Vijay Laxmi Road Carrier, RIICO Area, Ajmer Road, Beawear Distt. Ajmer. 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its regional manager, regional office at Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur (Insurer of the Jeep No.RJ-14-6C-0512) 4. Mohan s/o Bhanwarji r/o village Somalpur Distt. Ajmer (presently driver of the truck No.RSZ-5425) 5. Bhojraj s/o Shri Ramchandra r/o Sant Kanwar Ram Transport Company Ajmer, at present Naeen Oriental Transport Company, Kesarganj, Ajmer (Regd. Owner of the truck No.RSZ-5425) 6. United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its regional manager, regional office at Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravi Singh with Ms. Shreya Khandal on behalf of Mr. L. P. Singhal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shruti Dixit (for respondent No.6- United India Insurance Company Ltd.) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 09/07/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:25328] (2 of 7) [CMA-2267/2006] 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 27.02.2006 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track No.1), Beawar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned MACT/Tribunal"), in Claim Petition No.80/2005, titled as 'Smt. Kanchan & Ors. Vs. Irfan Mohammad & Ors.', whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition, and awarded a sum of Rs.2,59,000/-, along with interest of 6% per annum, as compensation in favour of the claimants/appellants. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 29.01.2001, the deceased Nara was travelling in a Marshal Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-14-6C-512. Upon reaching near village Kesarpura, another vehicle suddenly appeared from the opposite direction and due to bright lights of that vehicle, the driver of the Marshal Jeep failed to control the jeep in time and collided with a Truck parked on the side of the road. As a result, Nara died on the spot. Subsequently, the claimants/appellants filed a claim petition seeking compensation. 3. The non-claimant/respsondent No.1, despite service of notice of the claim petition, chose not to contest the claim petition, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him on 08.10.2002. 4. Respondents No.2-Radheshyam Joshi (registered Owner of the Marshal Jeep), filed a reply denying the averments made by [2025:RJ-JP:25328] (3 of 7) [CMA-2267/2006] the claimants/appellants. He submitted that the vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Company, and therefore, any liability arises, than it should be fastened upon them. He prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Respondent No.3-Oriental Insurance Company, also filed a separate reply, denying the claimants' averments. They contended that the driver of the insured vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license to operate the said vehicle, thereby, violating the terms and condition of the insurance policy. Thus, they stated that Oriental Insurance Company may not be held liable to pay any compensation, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. Respondents No.4 and 5 (Mohan, driver of the truck and Bhojraj, owner of the truck) did not appear before the learned Tribunal, and ex-parte proceedings were drawn against them on 28.01.2004. 7. Respondent No.6-United India Insurance Company, also filed a separate reply, denying the averments of the claim petition. They further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Marshal Jeep and, therefore, United India Insurance Company may not be held liable to pay any compensation, accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. [2025:RJ-JP:25328] (4 of 7) [CMA-2267/2006] 8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues. 9. In order to substantiate the pleas and averments of the claim petition, the claimants/appellants examined herself Kanchan (PW-1) and Habeeb (PW-2), Mohan (PW-3), Mohammed Irfaan (PW-4), and Nathunath (PW-5). They also produced 154 documents (Ex-1 to Ex-154). 10. In rebuttal, the respondents examined Chanderkala (DW-1), Gyanchand (DW-2) and Pawan Kumar Joshi (DW-3) and produced documents, including Ex.P1 - Ex.P3. 11. After hearing arguments of the learned counsels for the respective parties, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim, vide award dated 27.02.2006, and awarded a sum of Rs.2,59,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants/appellants. 12. Being aggrieved by the inadequate amount of the compensation, the claimants/appellants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement. 13. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submitted that at the time of the accident, the deceased Nara was 40 years old, with an income of Rs.4,500/- per month. He submitted that the learned Tribunal erred by assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.2,100/- per month and by incorrectly deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses instead of 1/4th, considering the number of [2025:RJ-JP:25328] (5 of 7) [CMA-2267/2006] claimants. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to consider future prospects and awarded an insufficient amount under the conventional heads, therefore, he submits that in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 impuguned award may kindly be modified. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.6-United India Insurance Company Ltd. has supported the impugned award. She submitted that the impugned award is based on correct a appreciation of the facts and established law, and was passed after due examination of the pleadings of the parties. She further submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal, thus no interference is required by this Court, and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 15. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 16. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that although the learned Tribunal considered the age of the deceased to be 45 years, it assessed the income to be Rs.2,100/- per month in the absence of any conclusive proof. While incorrectly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, whereas as per the judgment of "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr." [2025:RJ-JP:25328] (6 of 7) [CMA-2267/2006] reported in 2009 (2) SCC (CRI) 1002, decided on 15.04.2009, considering the number of claimants, a deduction of 1/4th should have been made. Furthermore, the record reveals that the learned Tribunal did not consider the future prospects of the deceased while determining the compensation. Therefore, considering the facts of the case in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court finds that the compensation awarded by the impugned award requires modification as under: Loss of Income(+) Rs.2,100/-12x15=Rs.3,78,000/- Deduction 1/4 (-Rs.1,18,125/-) Rs.1,18,125/- Future Prospects 25% (+Rs.94,500/-) Rs.94,500/- Loss of Consortium (Rs.40,000/-x4) Rs.1,60,000/- Funeral Expenses (Rs.15,000/-) & Loss of Estate (Rs.15,000/-) (+) Rs.30,000/- Total Rs.5,44,375/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.2,59,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.2,85,375/- 17. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal is modified by enhancing the compensation to Rs.5,44,375/- from the original amount of Rs.2,59,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.2,85,375/- before the learned concerned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal within sixty (60) days from the date of passing of this order. The claimant/appellant is also entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount [2025:RJ-JP:25328] (7 of 7) [CMA-2267/2006] Rs.2,85,375/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the said amount. 18. Since the learned Tribunal had fastened the liability upon the Insurance Companies in the ratio of 60%-40% respectively while considering the relief, that finding of the impugned award is maintained. 19. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced as per the terms indicated above. 20. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/63