[2025:RJ-JP:42454] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4154/2025 Lilawati Wife Of Late Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 79 Years, Resident Of Village Khudiyana, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar (Rajasthan) At Present R/o-Pandit Ka Bas Village Ghegholi, Near Bakhtal Ki Chowki, Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Claimant/Appellant Versus 1. Bijendra Singh Son Of Rajilal, Resident Of House No. 257, Indira Aawas Colony, Village Bhakhri, Faridabas, Haryana. Driver Vehicle Number -Rj-40-Ra-1423. 2. Bishamar Son Of Hariram, Resident Of Village Santhalka, Teshil Tijara, District Alwar, Owner Vehicle Number-Rj-40- Ra-1423. 3. Mahaveer Son Of Shadiram, Resident Of Village Pingod, District Palwal, Haryana, At Present Owner Vehicle Number-Rj-40-Ra-1423. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 14/10/2025 1. This civil misc. appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter, ‘the M.V. Act’) against the judgement/award dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar in Claim Petition No. 203/2022 (CIS No. 203/2022) whereby the claim petition was partly allowed and a total compensation of Rs. 8,08,000/- along with 6% interest was awarded from the date of filing the claim [2025:RJ-JP:42454] (2 of 5) [CMA-4154/2025] petition dated 29.03.2022 in favour of the appellants-claimants and held all respondents jointly and severally liable. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act before the learned trial Court in the capacity of legal heirs/representatives of the deceased. As per the facts of the petition, on 01.02.2021, deceased Bacchu Singh was going to Faridabad from Amba Stone Crasher Company No. 86 Pali, Faridabad on motorcycle no. HR-87- B-2939 for crasher work. When he reached the police chowki Akhirpur in front of Thsit College at around 6:30 pm-7:00 pm, the driver of the tractor no. RJ 40-RA 1423 driving negligently hit Bachhu Singh causing serious injuries on his body. He was then taken to the hospital wherein he was declared dead. Thereafter, FIR No. 73/2021 of the said accident was filed at the Police Station Surajkund, Faridabad. After investigation, the local police filed a case against respondent No. 1 driver under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and presented the same under Sections 134 and 187 of the M.V. Act. 3. The learned tribunal passed an ex-parte order against respondent No. 1 on 15.10.2022 when despite serving the notice, he didn’t participate in the proceedings. Respondents No. 2 & 3 submitted their replies respectively. 4. The learned counsel for appellants-claimants submits that the learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased on a very lower side at Rs. 10,000/- per month whereas the deceased aged 54 years used to earn about Rs. 15,000/- per month by [2025:RJ-JP:42454] (3 of 5) [CMA-4154/2025] working as an Accountant at Amba Stone Crasher Company. Further, a compensation of just Rs. 44,000/- has been awarded under the head of loss of consortium and the learned Tribunal failed to consider the future prospects which should have been 100% considering the age of the deceased as 54 years. He submits that an inadequate compensation has been awarded under the heads of loss of love, care & affection, mental agony suffered by the family members due to death of a family member and at least Rs. 1,00,000/- for each head should have been awarded. Further, the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of just Rs. 33,000/- under the heads of loss to estate and funeral expenses, whereas the appellants are entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- and hence, a prayer for modifying the award and enhancing the compensation as well as the rate of interest has been made. 5. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record. 6. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and the facts on record, the Court has to examine whether there is a need to interfere with the learned Tribunal’s decision and enhance the awarded compensation and the rate of interest. 7. In the present case, the learned Tribunal considered the mother of the deceased as dependent upon him. The deceased was unmarried. As per the Aadhaar Card and PAN Card, the age of the deceased was estimated to be approximately 52 years at the [2025:RJ-JP:42454] (4 of 5) [CMA-4154/2025] date of the accident, and accordingly, a factor of 11 was determined to be used for the individuals in this age group. The appellant-claimant did not present any documentary evidence to prove that the deceased used to earn Rs. 10,000/- to 15,000/- by working as an accountant in the Amba Stone Crasher Company, thus, the learned Tribunal determined his monthly income at Rs. 10,000/- considering the age of deceased with a 10% increase in is future income, thus, the deceased monthly income came to be determined as Rs. 11,000/-. One-half of the deceased’s income was considered appropriate to be deducted for personal expenses, thus, the monthly income came to be determined as Rs. 5,500/-. Considering the multiplier as 11, a compensation of Rs. 7,26,000/- was considered appropriate to be awarded to the appellants due to death of the deceased in the accident. Further, a sum of Rs. 44,000/- was awarded under the head of loss of consortium, Rs. 33,000/- under the heads of loss to estate and funeral expenses, and Rs. 5000/- was awarded for transportation. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- along with 6% interest was awarded from the date of filing the claim petition dated 29.03.2022 in favour of the appellants-claimants and all respondents were held jointly and severally liable. 8. Having regard to the discussions made and also taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case and prayer made in this civil miscellaneous appeal, the Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has appropriately considered the principles laid [2025:RJ-JP:42454] (5 of 5) [CMA-4154/2025] down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of 2012(1) ACTC (SC) 230 Govind Yadav v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 National Insurance v. Pranay Sethi, 2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC) Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport, Civil Appeal No. 3093 of 2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somvati and Others and by this Court in the case of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1851/2019 Gayatri Kanwar Vs United India Insurance. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidences put on record, the Court finds no perversity in the award dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar in Claim Petition No. 203/2022 (CIS No. 203/2022). 9. In view of the discussion made above, this civil miscellaneous appeal deserves to be dismissed as there is no merit in the submissions of the appellant-claimant. 10. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /8