[2025:RJ-JP:25163] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 233/2010 1. Chetram Saini s/o Jhuntha Ram 2. Samoti Devi w/o Chetaram Saini 3. Phoolwati w/o Rambharosi 4. Uma Bai d/o Rambharosi 5. Kavita d/o Rambharosi 6. Mausam Bai d/o Rambharosi 7. Nand Kishore s/o Rambharosi 8. Shyamsunder s/o Rambharosi Nos.4 to 8 minors through their mother Smt. Phoolwati w/o Rambharosi, All r/o village Bhajeda, tehsil todabheem, district karauli (Raj.) at present r/o Dausa ----Claimants/Appellants Versus 1. Ramnarayan Yadav s/o K. Yadav, r/o 2 round Tank Havda. 2. Rajrani w/o Anil Kumar Resident of arya bhawan, rohit bulk carriers A-1, A Janta Phulet Samesar, Ashwani Kun Marg, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through Manager, H.O. Jaipur. ----Non-claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Banshi Dhar Badaya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 08/07/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the award dated 24.03.2005 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa (hereinafter referred to as "the learned MACT/ Tribunal"), in Claim Case No.107/2004, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.4,45,000/-, along with interest of 9% per annum as compensation on account of the death of Rambharosi. [2025:RJ-JP:25163] (2 of 5) [CMA-233/2010] 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 20.07.2000, the deceased Rambharosi, aged 32 years, was going on his motorcycle, driving in the correct side of the road while following the traffic rules. Suddenly, near Tan Patoli Ki Bagichi, Rrespondent No.1-Ramnarayan Yadav(driver of the Tanker) while driving the Tanker, bearing registration no. HR 46 -7853, at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite side and collided with the motorcycle of the deceased Rambharosi. As a result of the accident, Rambharosi died on the spot. 3. The claimants/appellants asserted that the age of the deceased was 32 years and the deceased Rambharosi was earning Rs.8,000/- per month, thus, his legal representatives filed the claim petition seeking just compensation. 4. Despite service of notice, the non-claimant/respondent No.1- Ramnarayan Yadav, did not appear, and on 07.07.2002, the learned Tribunal initiated ex-parte proceedings against him. 5. The non-claimant/respondent No.2-Rajrani, also did not file a reply. 6. The non-claimant/respondent No.3-Insurance Company, filed its reply, denying the averments made by the claimants/appellants. It contended that the driver, owner and the Insurance Company of the motorcycle has not impleaded, who are the necessary parties and further, that due intimation of the accident was not given to the Insurance Company, therefore, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants/appellants. [2025:RJ-JP:25163] (3 of 5) [CMA-233/2010] 7. That on the basis on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the five issues. 8. In order to substantiate their averments, the claimants/appellants examined four witnesses: Phoolwati (AW-1), Kishanlal (AW-2), Mahesh Kumar Mali (AW-3), and Babulal (AW- 4). They also exhibited 28 documents, including the Final Result Report (Ex-1), FIR (Ex-2), Seizure Memo Tanker (Ex-3), Notice under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicle Act (Ex-4), Site map (Ex- 5), receipt (Ex-6), Postmortem Report (Ex-7) and other relevant documents (Ex-21 to Ex-28). 9. In rebuttal, the non-claimant/respondent No.3-Insurance Company, did not led any oral evidence but produced a copy of the insurance policy (Ex. NA-3/1). 10. After considering the arguments and evidence, the learned Tribunal has decided all the five issues in favour of the claimants and the learned Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased Rambharosi as Rs.3,000/- per month and, by applying a multiplier of 17, awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,45,000/-, along with interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing the application till realization. 11. Admittedly, the Insurance Company has not assailed the impugned award. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants solely for enhancement of the compensation. 12. The learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is inadequate as future prospect is not considered and amount awarded under the conventional heads is meagre and requires modification in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "National [2025:RJ-JP:25163] (4 of 5) [CMA-233/2010] India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi" reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680. Therefore, he prayed for a suitable modification and enhancement of the compensation. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-claimant/respondent- Insurance Company has supported the impugned award, submitting that the amount awarded was just and proper, based on a correct appreciation of facts and law, as the learned Tribunal had rightly considered all relevant facts. He submits that no interference is required by this Court, and the appeal may kindly be dismissed. 14. Heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record, and after duly considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) , this Court proceeds to reassess the compensation. 15. From a bare perusal of record, it is evident that the learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased Rambharosi to be Rs.3,000/- per month and his age at 32 years, and awarded compensation of Rs.4,45,000/- along with interest of 9%, but future prospects of the deceased is not considered and under the conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded meagre amount. 16. That if we examine the facts of the case in the light of the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court finds that the compensation awarded to the claimants/appellants under the impugned order is required to be enhanced in terms of the table herein below: [2025:RJ-JP:25163] (5 of 5) [CMA-233/2010] Loss of Income(+) Rs.3,000/-x12x16=Rs.5,76,000/- Future Prospects 40% (+) Rs.2,30,400/- Deduction of Personal Expenses (-)(1/5) Rs.1,61,280/- Loss of Love, Affection and Consortium (+) Rs.3,20,000/- (40,000x8) Funeral Expenses (+) Rs. 15,000/- Loss of Estate (+) Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.9,95,120/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.4,45,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.5,50,120/- 17. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified by enhancing to Rs. 9,95,120/- from the original amount of Rs.4,35,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.5,50,120/- before the learned concerned learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. The claimants/appellants is also entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount Rs.5,50,120/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the said amount. 18. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced as per the terms indicated above. 19. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/71