[2025:RJ-JP:40509] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1293/2021 1. Sakila Alias Shakila W/o Late Aizaz Ahmad, Aged About 25 Years, R/o House No. 53-B, Meer Ji Ka Bag, M.i. Road, Jaipur. 2. Alvina Aizaz D/o Late Aizaz Ahmad, Aged About 10 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Sakila W/o Late Aizaz Ahmad. R/o House No. 53-B, Meer Ji Ka Bag, M.I. Road, Jaipur. 3. Mohammad Subhan S/o Late Aizaz Ahmad, Aged About 7 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Sakila W/o Late Aizaz Ahmad. R/o House No. 53-B, Meer Ji Ka Bag, M.I. Road, Jaipur. 4. Shakira Bano W/o Late Mohammad Ayyub, Aged About 48 Years, (Deleted Due To Died During Trial) 5. Mohammad Shaheed S/o Late Mohammad Ayyub, Aged About 9 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Grand Mother Chhuttan Alias Chhotni W/o Late Abdul Aziz. R/o House No. 53-B, Meer Ji Ka Bag, M.I. Road, Jaipur. 6. Nida D/o Late Mohammad Ayyub, Aged About 10 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Grand Mother Chhuttan Alias Chhotni W/o Late Abdul Aziz. R/o House No. 53-B, Meer Ji Ka Bag, M.I. Road, Jaipur. 7. Chhuttan Alias Chhotni W/o Late Abdul Aziz, Aged About 68 Years, R/o House No. 53-B, Meer Ji Ka Bag, M.I. Road, Jaipur. ----Claimants/Appellants Versus 1. Shafiq Ahmed S/o Abdul Aziz, R/o House No. 1450, Near Nili Haweli Foota Khurra, Thana Ramganj, Jaipur (Raj.) (Vehicle Driver Car No. Rj-14-3C-9034) 2. Rafeek Ahmad S/o Abdul Aziz, R/o House No. 1450, Near Nili Haweli Foota Khurra, Thana Ramganj, Jaipur (Raj.) (Vehicle Registered Owner Car No. Rj-14-3C-9034) 3. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Regional Manager Office Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur. (Vehicle Insurance Company Car No. Rj-14-3C-9034) ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:40509] (2 of 5) [CMA-1293/2021] For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhanu Prakash For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 06/10/2025 1. This civil misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount which has been awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur in Claim Petition No.52/2018 (CIS No.52/2018) whereby, total compensation amount awarded to the claimants/appellants is to the tune of Rs.12,79,600/-. 2. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. First submission of the counsel for the appellants-claimants is that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at lower side. 4. The Court finds that the claim petition was filed and the evidence was adduced from the claimants side that the deceased was working as a mechanic at Siraj Denting Works where he was paid Rs.13,500/- per month and a certificate in that regard has also been placed on record which is marked as Ex.-14. The deceased died on 19.11.2017 and the certificate is said to have issued on 18.04.2018. The certificate is not supported by any evidence including balance-sheet of the firm which has issued the salary certificate or any Income Tax returns of that firm which could establish that the deceased was being paid by the firm. [2025:RJ-JP:40509] (3 of 5) [CMA-1293/2021] 5. The proprietor has also examined as AW-4. The scrutiny of the evidence AW-4-Mohd. Wasim also does not inspire confidence and truthness of this salary certificate. In absence of any reliable evidence, the finding and assessment of the Tribunal as regards the income of the deceased does not call for any interference. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants has submitted that only Rs.40,000/- in total has been allowed under the head of consortium whereas, there are four dependents on the deceased including mother, wife and children. 7. The consortium amount is to be allowed for all the four per head. It is settled principle of law that the compensation amount under the head of consortium is allowed for all the dependents/claimants i.e. Rs.40,000/- per head. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.: (2017) 16 SCC 680 in para 52 has observed as under:- “As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the [2025:RJ-JP:40509] (4 of 5) [CMA-1293/2021] thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- And Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact- centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.” 8. In the light of observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the amount of compensation under the head of consortium is also liable to be enhanced after three years. Meaning thereby, each of the four claimants/appellants who are dependent are entitled for an amount of Rs.44,000/- per head under the head of consortium. Since Rs.40,000/- has already been allowed by the Tribunal under the head of consortium, the claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,36,000/- under the head of consortium. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has also raised another issue that under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, the claimants have been allowed Rs.15,000/- each. He further submits that in the light of observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi, additionally Rs.15,000/- in each head of loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be enhanced. [2025:RJ-JP:40509] (5 of 5) [CMA-1293/2021] 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has already held that the amount of compensation under the conventional heads is required to be revisited in view of the price hike by 10% after three years. 11. In view of the settled principle of law in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants/appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses. 12. In view of discussions made above, the claimants are entitled for enhancement of total compensation amount by an additional amount of Rs.1,51,000/-. 13. The present appeal is partly allowed and the amount as awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced with an additional amount of Rs.1,51,000/-. The claimants/appellants shall also be entitled for interest on the additional enhanced amount @7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 14. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /63