[2025:RJ-JP:15434] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1571/2016 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At 414, Veer Sawarkar Marg, Ridhi Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400051, Having Its Regional Office At II Floor, Bhagwati Bhawan, Above P.l. Motors, Government Hostel Crossing, M.I. Road, Jaipur. Through Its Constituent Attorney. ----Non-claimant/Appellant Versus 1. Anitadevi W/o Late Virendra Alias Viru, aged about 30 years, R/o Pappurana, Tehsil Khetdi, District Jhunjhunu, Raj. 2. Kasish S/o Late Virendra Alias Viru, 3. Sakshi D/o Late Virendra Alias Viru, 4. Ankit S/o Late Virendra Alias Viru Respondent No. 2 To 4 Being Minor Represented Through Natural G, R/o Pappurana, Tehsil Khetdi, District Jhunjhunu, Raj. 5. Prahlad S/o Ganpatram, aged about 65 years R/o Pappurana, Tehsil Khetdi, District Jhunjhunu, Raj. Claimant-respondents 6. Sandeep Kumar S/o Kanwar Singh, aged about 30 years, R/o Nawta Ki Dhani Neemwali Tehsil Buhana, District- Jhunjhunu Raj. (Driver Motorcycle No. HR-35E-8610). 7. Rajkumar S/o Ramavtar, aged about 50 years, R/o Nangalkatha, Tehsil And P.S. Narnol, District Mahendragarh, Haryana. (Owner Motorcycle No. HR-35E- 8610) ----Non-Claimants-Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1275/2016 1. Anitadevi W/o Late Virendra Alias Viru, aged about 25 years, R/o Pappurana, Tehsil Khetdi, District Jhunjhunu, Raj. 2. Kasish, aged about 7 years. [2025:RJ-JP:15434] (2 of 9) [CMA-1571/2016] 3. Sakshi, aged about 4 years. 4. Ankit, aged about 11 months (son and daughter of late Virendra Minors Represented Through Natural Guardian mother-Anitadevi W/o Virendra @ Veeru Aged about 25 years, R/o Pappurana, Tehsil Khetdi, District Jhunjhunu, Raj. 5. Prahlad S/o Ganpatram, aged about 65 years R/o Pappurana, Tehsil Khetdi, District Jhunjhunu, Raj. Claimant-respondents Versus 1. Sandeep Kumar S/o Kanwarsingh, aged about 25 years, R/o Navta Ki Dhani Neemwali Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, Raj. Driver Of Motorcycle No. HR-35E-8610 2. Rajkumar S/o Ramavtar, aged about 45 years, R/o Nangalkatha Tehsil And Police Station Narnol District Mahendragarh, Haryana. Registered Owner Of Motorcycle No. HR-35E-8610 3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd, Branch Office Maker Tower Basant Vihar Plot No. 9, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur, Raj. Insurance Company ----Respondents For Insurance Company : Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha For Claimants/Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Jangir (appellant in CMA No.1275/2016) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :: 04/04/2025 JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 25/04/2025 S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1571/2016 1. This appeal has been preferred by the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. under Section 173 of the Motor [2025:RJ-JP:15434] (3 of 9) [CMA-1571/2016] Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) praying dismissal of the claim petition by setting aside award dated 14.01.2016 passed by MACT, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu in claim case No. 75/2010. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1275/2016 2. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying enhancement in the award dated 14.01.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khetri, District- Jhunjhunu, in claim case No. 75/2010 titled as Anita Devi & ors. vs. Sandeep and ors. whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,39,670/- in favour of appellants-claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Shri Virendra @ Veeru. Since, both the appeals have arisen out of same award, hence, for the sack of convenience at the request of both the counsel, above appeals are being decided by the single judgment. 3. The necessary facts for disposal of the appeals are that on 29.01.2010 at around 5.30-6 PM, the deceased Shri Virendra @ Veeru was returning to his hut after natural call, suddenly a Hero- Honda Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.HR-35E-8610 driven rashly and negligently by driver Sandeep Kumar, hit him as a result of which, he sustained serious injuries and during treatment, died on 13.02.2010. Hence, claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal. [2025:RJ-JP:15434] (4 of 9) [CMA-1571/2016] 4. Notices were served to the respondents. Respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner appeared before the learned Tribunal and have filed written statement respectively denying the averments made in the claim petition. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company of the offending vehicle appeared and filed the written statement controverting all the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the Driver of the Motor-cycle above did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the Motor- cycle. Therefore, due to the violation of the insurance terms, the Insurance Company is not liable for compensation amount. It is also averred in the reply that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who was suddenly crossing the road. So the claim petition filed by the claimants is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned Tribunal has framed four issues for consideration. In support of claim petition, the claimants examined AW-1 Smt. Anita Devi and AW-2 Ajay Singh, and exhibited the documents from Ex.1 to Ex.48. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the respondents. 6. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced on record, learned Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 6,39,670/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the petition till payment and if payment was not made within three months from the date of passing of the judgment, claimants will be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded compensation. [2025:RJ-JP:15434] (5 of 9) [CMA-1571/2016] 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 14.01.2016, the present appeals have been filed by the appellants-claimants as well as by respondent- Insurance Company. 8. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that in the present case, FIR was lodged against unknown vehicle and there is no iota of evidence to establish that the insured vehicle was ever involved in the alleged accident. In fact, claimant has utterly failed to prove that Sandeep Kumar was driving the offending vehicle at the time of alleged accident. The insured vehicle and driver both were substituted with mala fide intention to snatch the amount of compensation from the appellant Insurance Company, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation. 10. Opposing the contentions raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company, learned counsel for the claimants has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation against Insurance Company though learned Tribunal has not followed the settled principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, according to which compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced. 11. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. [2025:RJ-JP:15434] (6 of 9) [CMA-1571/2016] 12. At the outset, though the Insurance Company has opposed the claim petition by contending that insured vehicle was not involved in the accident but in support of its contentions, the Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence. On the contrary before the Tribunal, material witnesses of claimants AW.1-Anita Devi and AW.2-Ajay Singh have stated positively the involvement of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident. Therefore, relying on the same, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. 13. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- as spousal consortium and Rs.30,000/- to three children as parental consortium, Rs. 10,000/- as filial consortium to the father of deceased, Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.23,866.35/- towards medical expenses on treatment of the deceased. 14. The Tribunal ought to have followed the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in:- (i) (2017) 16 SCC 680, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (ii) (2018) 18 SCC 130 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors. However, without following the guidelines issued in the said judgments, the Tribunal mechanically awarded compensation which is not permissible. [2025:RJ-JP:15434] (7 of 9) [CMA-1571/2016] 15. The claimants before the Tribunal have pleaded that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 28 years. In the discharge summary Exhibit-13 also, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 28 years so the Tribunal has correctly determined the age of 28 years according to which multiplier of 17 applied by the Tribunal has rightly been appreciated. 16. The Tribunal has determined the monthly income of Rs.3600/- as minimum wages but the Tribunal has failed to consider that the minimum wages prevailing on the date of accident will be relevant, therefore the determination of minimum wages for unskilled labourer as assessed Rs.3600/- per month is not proper hence considering the minimum wages for unskilled labour at the time of accident i.e. 29.01.2010 @ Rs.100/- per day considering month of 30 days, monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.3000/- and since the deceased died leaving behind 5 dependents, therefore, after deduction of 1/4th i.e. Rs.750/- per month from the above assessed income, the amount comes to Rs.2250/- and adding its 40% i.e. Rs.900/- towards future prospects in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.3150/- per month. Hence, net income would come to Rs. 3150/- per month and loss of income comes to Rs. 3150 X 17x 12=6,42,600/-. 17. In view of the above, the appellant/claimants are also entitled to sum of Rs.2,30,000/- with increase of its 10% of every three years under the non-pecuniary heads of loss of consortium, [2025:RJ-JP:15434] (8 of 9) [CMA-1571/2016] loss of estate and thereby the appellants/claimants are entitled for Rs.2,76,000/- towards conventional heads as per the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance (supra). 18. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is ought to be re-assessed, and re-determined as follows:- Sr. No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Award modified by this Court (in Rs.) 1. Loss of income 5,50,800/- 6,42,600/- 2. loss of estate, Nil 18,000/- 3. Filial Consortium 10,000/- 48,000/- 4. spousal Consortium 20,000/- 48,000/- 5. parental consortium for three children 30,000/- 1,44,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses 5,000/- 18,000/- 7. Medical Expenses 23,870/- 23,870/- Total Compensation 6,39,670/- 9,42,470/- 19. The appellants/claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.9,42,470/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. 20. Consequently, the Appeal No. 1571/2016 presented by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the Appeal No. 1275/2016 filed by the claimants/appellants is allowed. The judgment and [2025:RJ-JP:15434] (9 of 9) [CMA-1571/2016] award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the above extent. 21. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified /enhanced award of amount before the learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the appellant- claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire modified/ enhanced award with accrued interest in proportion as determined in the original award passed by the learned Tribunal, after deducting the amount already withdrawn, if any, on making appropriate and necessary application before the Tribunal. The appellant-claimants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal, if any. The Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced amount upon production of certified copy of this judgment. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Sunita/27-28