[2025:RJ-JP:47587] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3518/2017 1. Anita Meena W/o Late Shri Charatlal Meena, aged about 31 years; 2. Tanish S/o Late Shri Charatlal Meena, aged about 9 years; 3. Aman S/o Late Shri Charatlal Meena, aged about 7 years; Appellants No.2 and 3 are minor through their mother and Natural Guardian Smt. Anita Meena W/o late Shri Charatlal Meena. All resident of D-102, Roopbas Road, Malviya Nagar, Alwar. ----Claimants-Appellants Versus 1. Mukesh Chand Meena S/o Shri Hari Singh Meena, resident of Village Manotakala, Tehsil Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur (Driver Mini Bus No. RJ-14-PA-3275). 2. Surendra Singh S/o Bhullan Singh, resident of Village Khakhawali, Tehsil Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur (Owner - Mini Bus No. RJ-14-PA-3275) 3. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Division Office At Near Bijli Ghar Crossing, Alwar Having Its Regional Office At Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur through Its Manager (Insurance Company Mini Bus No. RJ-14-PA-3275, Policy No. 33060531150100001101 valid from 06.09.2015 to 05.09.2016. ----Non-claimants/Respondents 4. Inderlal Meena S/o Shri Shankar Lal Meena, aged about 77 years; 5. Smt. Somoti Devi W/o Shri Inderlal Meena, aged about 74 years; Respondent Nos.4 & 5 are resident of Village Arjunpura, Tehsil Masalpur, Distt. Karauli. ----Performa-Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4207/2017 Surendra Singh S/o Bhullan Singh, resident of Village Khakhavali, Tehsil Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) alleged [2025:RJ-JP:47587] (2 of 14) [CMA-3518/2017] owner of Mini Bus No. RJ-14-PA-3275. ----Non-claimant/Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Anita Meena W/o Late Charatlal Meena, aged about 31 years (wife of deceased); 2. Tanish S/o Late Shri Charatlal Meena, aged about 9 years (son of deceased); 3. Aman S/o Late Shri Charatlal Meena, aged about 7 Years (son of deceased); Appellants No.2 and 3 minor through their natural guardian-mother appellant No.1-Smt. Anita Meena. All resident of D-102, Roopbas Road, Malviya Nagar, Alwar (Raj.). Claimants/Respondents 4. Mukesh Chand Meena S/o Shri Hari Singh Meena, resident of Village Manota Kala, Tehsil Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) Driver of Mini Bus No. RJ-14-PA-3275. 5. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office At Near Bijli Ghar Ka Chauraha, Alwar (Raj.) Insurance company of Mini Bus No. RJ-14-PA-3275, Insurance Policy No.33060531150100001101 insurance period from 06.09.2015 to 05.09.2016. ----Non-claimants/Respondents 6. Indar Lal Meena S/o Shakar Lal Meena, aged about 77 years (Father of Deceased); 7. Smt. Somoti Devi W/o Indar Lal Meena, aged about 75 years (Mother of Deceased) Both resident of Village Arjunpura, Tehsil Masalpur, Distt. Karauli Raj. ----Claimants/Performa-Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur for claimants/appellants in Appeal No.3518/2017 & for non- claimants/respondents in Appeal No.4207/2017. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal for non- claimant/respondents No.2 in Appeal No.3518/2017 & for non- claimant/appellant in Appeal [2025:RJ-JP:47587] (3 of 14) [CMA-3518/2017] No.4207/2017. Mr. Rishipal Agarwal for non- claimant/respondent No.3-insurance company in Appeal No.3518/2017 & for non-claimant/respondent No.5 in Appeal No.4207/2017. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Judgment 09/10/2025 Arguments Concluded on :: October 09th, 2025 Judgment Reserved on :: October 09th, 2025 Judgment Pronounced on :: November 26th, 2025 1. Since both the misc. appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 25.03.2017 passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Laxmangarh (Alwar) [for short ‘the learned Tribunal’] in Claim Application- Letter No. 13/2016, hence, both the civil misc. appeals are being decided by a common judgment. 2. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3518/2017 has been filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal and so also the order of the learned Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company from the joint liability to pay the compensation amount. The challenge in the aforesaid appeal is in regard to the findings and the observations given by the learned Tribunal in respect of issue No.3 and so also the [2025:RJ-JP:47587] (4 of 14) [CMA-3518/2017] enhancement of the compensation amount which is a part of the issue No.4. 3. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4207/2017 has been filed by the registered owner of the offending vehicle as regards the findings of the learned Tribunal in respect of issue No.3 and exonerating the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle from the joint liability of compensation amount to the claimants. 4. Learned counsels appearing for the claimants as well as the registered owner of the offending vehicle submitted that the learned Tribunal has arrived to the conclusion in respect of issues No. 1 and 2 holding that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-PA-3275 which was duly insured with the respondent- Insurance Company on the date the alleged accident took place. It is also submitted that a valid insurance policy was in effect of the offending vehicle by the Insurance Company on the date of alleged accident and therefore, the Insurance Company is also jointly and severally liable for paying the compensation amount to the claimants. Counsels also submitted that the learned Tribunal has not taken care of the fact that the offending vehicle was having a valid permit on the relevant date and also the learned Tribunal has ignored the terms and conditions of the insurance policy wherein limitations as to use the vehicle have been given. [2025:RJ-JP:47587] (5 of 14) [CMA-3518/2017] The learned Tribunal has given the finding in favour of the respondent- Insurance Company and against the claimants only on the ground that the offending vehicle was having a permit to ply on the route from a particular point to a particular point and the alleged accident took place beyond the route of permit on some nearby place and since the accident took place beyond the permit route as the learned Tribunal has exonerated the respondent- Insurance Company on the ground that that the plying of offending vehicle beyond the permit route, was in breach of the insurance policy. Such finding of the learned Tribunal is illegal and perverse for the reason that the breach of policy can be construed only in case the vehicle is being plied contrary to the provisions given under limitations as to use in the insurance policy. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants also submitted that the learned Tribunal has also not computed the compensation amount as per the provisions of law and the principles of law settled by the Courts. It is submitted that since the age of the deceased was 42 years, the claimants were entitled for future prospects @ 30% under the head of loss of income. He also submitted that the claimants were also entitled for the loss of consortium @ Rs.48,400/- per claim in view of the settled principles of law. He further submitted that the claimants are entitled for Rs.18,150/- under the head of loss of estate. It is also [2025:RJ-JP:47587] (6 of 14) [CMA-3518/2017] submitted that while ascertaining the income for computing the compensation under the head of loss of income, the learned Tribunal has wrongly made the deductions of Rs.5404/- as the same were being deducted from the salary of the deceased per month. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Insurance Company submitted that the findings and the observations of the learned Tribunal as regards the Issue Nos. 3 and 4 are just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He also submitted that the offending vehicle was being plied beyond the route permit and therefore, the respondent – Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as the plying route permit was in breach of the insurance policy. He also submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly computed the compensation amount after taking into consideration the evidence available on the record. 6. Considered the submissions made at Bar and also perused the record of the case. 7. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed as many as four issues for adjudication of the claim petition. The issues are quoted as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:47587] (7 of 14) [CMA-3518/2017] “1. आयय ददनयनक 04.11.2015 कक चयलक अपयरर सनखयय 1 दयरय पशनगत वयहन सनखयय आर.जज. 14-पप.ए.3275 कक तजजप, गफलत व लयपरवयहप सज चलयकर ददररटनय कयररत कक गई ? 2. आयय ददनयनक ददररटनय कज समय उक वयहन कक वयहन सवयमप अपयरर सनखयय 2 कज दनयकजन मम हककर उसप कज दहतयरर व उसकक सहमदत सज चलय रहय रय ? 3. आयय दवपकप कज दलदखत करन कक पयरदममक / दवशजष करन कक आपदतययन सयररक हह, यदद हयह तक इनकय कयय पमयव हकगय? 4. अनदतकष ?" 8. The learned Tribunal has decided the issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the claimants and against the non- claimants whereby it has been held that the alleged accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-PA-3275 by its driver under the consent and for registered owner of the vehicle. 9. The issue No.3 relates to the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the Insurance Company that the accident took place at a place which was beyond the route permit of the offending vehicle and the same was in breach of the insurance policy and therefore, the respondent – Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 10. The learned Tribunal while giving the findings as regards the issue No.3 has merely relied on the fact that the vehicle was having a route permit of 28 kms. from Agriculture Marketing Board, Alwar to Baroda Meo Via Bakhtal Ki Chowki, [2025:RJ-JP:47587] (8 of 14) [CMA-3518/2017] Bagad Tiraha, Sheetal. It has been stated that the alleged accident took place beyond the limits of these 28 kms. and also stated that there was no permit to take the bus to the place of accident. The learned Tribunal also observed that the accident has taken place about 10-15 kms. ahead of the route for which the permit was issued for plying the bus. 11. First of all the Court finds that the offending vehicle- bus was having a route permit for plying the vehicle and taking the passengers from Agriculture Marketing Board, Alwar to Baroda Meo Via Bakhtal Ki Chowki, Bagad Tiraha, Sheetal. The route is of total 28 kms. As per the facts available on the record, the accident has taken place within the limits of Baroda Meo i.e. the last destination of the route permit and that is within 10-15 kms. of one end of the route permit. Vehicle, if is given a route permit from one point to other point for taking the passengers, it can never be said or presumed or hold that the vehicle cannot go beyond the end point of permit because the route permit is for taking the passengers from one point to the other. It does not mean that the vehicle will remain at the end point. Many at times a vehicle has to go somewhere within a short limit for the purpose of mechanical inspection or mechanical repair or the residence or stay point of the driver and the cleaner, may be at some distance or at the end point of the route permit, where there may not be sufficient space to keep the vehicle [2025:RJ-JP:47587] (9 of 14) [CMA-3518/2017] on standing position for the whole time other than the plying time. It does not mean that if any accident took place by a vehicle beyond the route permit then the Insurance Company would not be liable. The material fact which has been ignored by the learned Tribunal is the limitations as to use of the vehicle given in the insurance policy (Ex.NA1). The limitations as to use given in the insurance policy speaks that the policy does not cover the use for (a) Organized racing, (b) Pace Making, (c) Reliability Trials, (d) Speed Testing, (e) Use whilst drawing a trailer except the towing (other than for reward) of any one disable Mechanically propelled vehicle. In the present case, the vehicle was being taken beyond the limit of route permit, which is not covered under the clauses, whereas the limit to use has been given as stated above. At the place where the accident occurred, the vehicle was not taken for Organized Racing, or Pace Making or Reliability Trials or Speed Testing. Taking the vehicle beyond the route permit cannot be said to be in breach of the insurance policy until and unless it is taken for the reasons stated above. Merely because the accident took place just at some distance beyond the route permit, cannot be said to be in breach of the Insurance Policy. It is not in dispute that road tax was paid for running a vehicle on the road. The route permits are granted for the buses for taking the passengers only on that route. Beyond the route permit there may be restrictions for [2025:RJ-JP:47587] (10 of 14) [CMA-3518/2017] taking the passengers but there are no restrictions for taking the vehicle to some nearby place for any other purposes like mechanical repair, keep standing the vehicle when not plying or at a place of stay of driver. It is not the case of the respondents that the vehicle was being plied with the passengers beyond the route permit. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court delivered in the case of R.K. College v. Ramesh Chand & Ors., reported in 2007 Supreme (Raj.) 796. In that case the Court observed that as per the terms of the permit, the vehicle could not be plied on a Nationalised route. A distinction has to be drawn in the present case in a case where the vehicle was being plied on a Nationalised route. The Court has held therein that there was violation of the terms of breach of conditions of the insurance policy but in the present case, this Court did not find any breach of Insurance Policy or the breach of the route permit. 12. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Tulsi & Anr. v. Lal Chand & Lalji & Anr. & other connected matters, reported in 2018 (1) RAR 85 (Raj.) has observed in paras 11, 18 and 19 as under:- “11. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the owner/ driver that the Tribunal committed error in coming to the conclusion that there was violation of policy condition as the vehicle was plying beyond the area for which, the permit was [2025:RJ-JP:47587] (11 of 14) [CMA-3518/2017] granted by the DTO. It is submitted that the said breach is not fundamental enough, so as to exonerate the Insurance Company. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in R.K. College vs. Ramesh Chand & Ors., 2008 RAR 48 (Raj.). It was prayed that the finding of the Tribunal be set aside and the direction to pay and recover of the amount from the appellant be also set aside. 18. This Court in the case of R.K. College (supra) after distinguishing the judgment in the case of Challa Bharathamma (supra), relied on by the counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company, has laid down that in such circumstances, the Insurance Company cannot seek exoneration. 19. In view of the law laid down by this Court in case of R.K. College (supra), the finding recorded by the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company from liability to pay compensation, cannot be sustained, therefore, the finding on issue No.3 is reversed and it is held that alongwith the owner & driver, the Insurance Company would be jointly and severally liable for making payment of compensation.” 13. In view of the discussion made above, the findings of the learned Tribunal as regards the issue No.3 are illegal and perverse and the same deserve to be reversed. 14. Accordingly, the issue No.3 is decided against the Insurance Company and held that the Insurance Company is also jointly and severally liable along-with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation to the claimants. 15. As regards the issue of quantum of compensation while ascertaining the income for the purpose of [2025:RJ-JP:47587] (12 of 14) [CMA-3518/2017] compensation under the head of loss of income, the deductions of Rs.5404/- do not seem to be just and proper for the reason that the deductions are accumulated and are payable to an employee at the time of his/ her superannuation. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava & Ors., reported in 2008 (1) SCC (Cri) 550 has held that the ‘perks and allowances will be included for computation of monthly income.’ The Hon’ble Apex Court in para 17 of the aforesaid judgment has observed as under:- “17. The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. We may, however, hasten to add that from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted.” 18. It is settled principles of law that in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 17 SCC 680, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para 59.8 as under:- "59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional basis, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The [2025:RJ-JP:47587] (13 of 14) [CMA-3518/2017] aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years." Thus, the claimants are also entitled for the loss of consortium amount i.e. Rs.48,400/- each. As per the settled law, the claimants are also entitled for funeral expenses for Rs.18,150/- and also Rs.18,150/- under the head of loss of estate. Since the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 42 years, the compensation under the head of loss of income is to be calculated after allowing 30% future prospects. 19. On consideration of the settled principles of law, the Court finds that the claimants are entitled for compensation as under:- Heads Calculations High Court Awarded by Tribunal Loss of Income (A) 39277x12x14 65,98,536/- Deduction (B) One fourth (6598536X3/4) 49,48,902/- Future prospects (C) 30% 14,84,671/- Loss of Consortium (D) 48,400x5 2,42,000/- Funeral Expenses (E) 18,150 18,150 Loss of Estate (F) 18,150 18,150 Total (B+C+D+E+F) 67,11,873/- 47,65,400/- 20. In view of the discussion made above, both the misc. appeals are disposed of as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:47587] (14 of 14) [CMA-3518/2017] (a) The claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.67,11,873/- (including any amount earlier paid) along- with interest @ 7.50% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 14.12.2015. The non-claimants- driver, owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. the New India Assurance Company Limited are held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants as ordered above. (b) The Award of the learned Tribunal stands modified as above. 21. In view of the judgment passed in the main appeals, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. 22. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this Judgment in the connected case file and also send back the record of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Sharma NK/Dy. Registrar