[2025:RJ-JP:40683] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2928/2013 1. Bajrang Lal S/o Nathu Lal, R/o Sahiwad, Thana Shahpura, Presently, S-19, Sanjay Colony, Dwarkapuri, Rpa Road, Jaipur 2. Akshay S/o Bajrang Lal Minor Through Its Natural Guardian/father Bajrang Lal, R/o Sahiwad, Thana Shahpura, Presently, S-19, Sanjay Colony, Dwarkapuri, Rpa Road, Jaipur ----Appellants/Claimants Versus 1. Jagdev Singh S/o Mukhatyar Singh, R/o Chhapaar, P.s. Dehalo, Distt. Ludhiyana Punjab Driver 2. Mukhatyar Singh S/o Jageer Singh, R/o Chhapaar, P.s. Dehalo, Distt. Ludhiyana Punjab Regd. Owner 3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Sahara Building, Tonk Road, Jaipur Insurer ----Respondents/defendants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Smt. Shruti Dixit HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/10/2025 1. Instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount. 2. The Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, District Jaipur, (hereinafter is to be referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) vide its judgment and award dated 28.05.2013, passed in Motor [2025:RJ-JP:40683] (2 of 4) [CMA-2928/2013] Accident Claim No.1349/2009, has awarded compensation amount to the tune of Rs.2,64,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, in favour of the appellants/claimants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the lower side by assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per year notionally. He further submits that the deceased was a house wife and the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shiv Kumar & Ors. Vs. Gainda Lal & Ors. reported in 2023 (1) R.A.R. 115 (SC) has considered the income of the house wife as Rs.7,500/- per month. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Insurance Company has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and submits that the appellants/claimants have claimed that the deceased was having a certificate of Beautician and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. He further submits that neither any documentary evidence with regard to the fact as alleged that the deceased was working as Beautician has been submitted before the Tribunal nor they have been abled to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. 5. Considered the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. 6. In case of Shiv Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the income of the deceased house wife as Rs.7,000/- per month, in view of the fact that the said house wife was doing tuition work. [2025:RJ-JP:40683] (3 of 4) [CMA-2928/2013] 7. In the present case, this Court in view of the discussions made above finds that at the time of the accident, which took place on 20.09.2009, the rate of daily wages at that relevant time was Rs.100/- per day, even if the deceased would be considered as a daily wager then also her monthly income would have been Rs.3,000/- per month and annual income would have been Rs.36,000/- per year and, therefore, after making deduction of one third (1/3rd) for computing of loss of income, the income of the deceased is to be assessed as Rs.24,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased has been determined in between the age group of 22 to 25 years and, therefore, the compensation amount is to be calculated by applying multiplier of eighteen (18). 8. The Tribunal has also not allowed any amount under the head of consortium. In view of the settled principles of law, both appellants/claimants are entitled to compensation under the head of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per head. 9. In view of the discussion made above, the appellants/claimants would be entitled to compensation as under:- I) Loss of Income 24000X18= 4,32,000/- II) Head of Consortium 40,000X2= 80,000/- The claimants have already been allowed Rs.2,55,000/- compensation under the head of loss of income. 10. The appellants/claimants have already been allowed the loss of Estate and Funeral charges as Rs.7,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively. Hence, the appellants/claimants are entitled to an additional compensation amount of Rs.2,57,000/-. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The appellants/claimants are held entitled to an additional [2025:RJ-JP:40683] (4 of 4) [CMA-2928/2013] compensation amount of Rs.2,57,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 08.12.2009. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /47