[2026:RJ-JP:2032] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 399/2023 1. Smt. Kamlesh Devi W/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Aged About 59 Years, (Mother of Deceased), 2. Kamal Singh @ Kamlesh Kumar S/o Shri Mamchand, Aged About 62 Years (Father of Deceased), 3. Anjali Kumari Jat D/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Aged About 25 Years (Younger Sister of Deceased), 4. Kumari Manisha D/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Aged About 23 Years (Younger Sister of Deceased), 5. Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Aged About 19 Years (Younger Brother of Deceased), All R/o Dayal Ki Nangal, District Sikar (Raj.). ----Appellants/Claimants Versus 1. Rohitash S/o Shri Phoolchand, R/o Village Doodhwa, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Driver of Truck Dumper No. RJ-14-GJ-4697) 2. Anandi Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Ramniwas Kumawat, R/o House No. 63, Viniyal Enclave, Takiya Ki Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jaipur (Registered Owner of Truck Dumper No. RJ- 14-GJ-4697). 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Through Manager, Office 9th-10th Floor, NBCC Centre, Sahakar Marg, Police Station Lalkothi, Jaipur (Insurance Company of Truck Dumper No. RJ-14-GJ-4697) ----Non-Claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhanu Prakash Verma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raaj Pal Chaudhary, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 08/01/2026 1- vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy /kkjk&173 eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e&1988 ds rgr U;k;ky; eksVj nq?kZVuk nkok vf/kdj.k la[;k&01] [2026:RJ-JP:2032] (2 of 9) [CMA-399/2023] t;iqj egkuxj&f}rh; ¼ftls vkxs ^fo}ku vf/kdj.k* ds uke ls lacksf/kr fd;k tk,xk½ }kjk Dyse ;kfpdk la[;k&547@2020] Jherh deys'k nsoh o vU; cuke jksfgrk'k o vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 09-11-2022 ¼ftls vkxs *vk{ksfir fu.kZ;* ds uke ls lacksf/kr fd;k tk,xk½ ds fo#) izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 2- vihykFkhZx.k }kjk fo}ku vf/kdj.k ds le{k eksVj okgu nq?kZVuk esa iwtk pkS/kjh dh e`R;q gks tkus ds QyLo:i dqy 96]35]142@& #i;s Dyse izkIr djus gsrq Dyse ;kfpdk izLrqr dh x;hA fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk mDr Dyse ;kfpdk dk fuLrkj.k djrs gq, ;kphx.k dks dqy 39]99]920@& #i;s dh {kfriwfrZ jkf’k e; C;kt 07 izfr’kr lkykuk dh nj ls fnyokbZ x;h gSA fo}ku vf/kdj.k ds mDr vk{ksfir fu.kZ; ls O;fFkr gksdj vihykFkhZx.k }kjk ;g vihy {kfriwfrZ jkf’k esa c<+ksrjh fd;s tkus gsrq izLrqr dh x;h gSA 3- nkSjkus cgl fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZx.k dk rdZ jgk gS fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk e`rdk dh ekfld vk;] csfld 22]000@& #i;s vkSj Mh-,- 2]640@& #i;s] dqy 24]640@& :i;s fu/kkZfjr dh tkdj =qfV dkfjr dh xbZ gS] tcfd e`rdk dh ekfld vk; esa ,p-vkj-,- Hkh tksM+k tkuk pkfg, FkkA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZx.k dk ;g Hkh rdZ jgk fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk vkfJr vk; dh x.kuk gsrq 17 dk xq.kd dk iz;ksx fd;k tkdj =qfV dkfjr dh x;h gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZx.k dk ;g Hkh rdZ jgk gS fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk dalksfVZ;e dh en esa rFkk vU; enksa esa Hkh vR;f/kd de jkf'k fnyokbZ x;h gS] ftuesa c<+ksrjh dh tkosA vr% vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy dks Lohdkj fd;k tkdj fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; dks la'kksf/kr dj {kfriwfrZ jkf'k esa c<+ksrjh fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;hA vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZx.k }kjk fuEu U;kf;d n`"Vkar is'k fd;s x;s %& ● Manasvi Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2014) 13 SCC 22 & ● Meenakshi Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2024 ACJ 1647. [2026:RJ-JP:2032] (3 of 9) [CMA-399/2023] 4- blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ chek dEiuh dh vksj ls vihykFkhZx.k ds mijksDr rdksZa dk fojks/k fd;k x;k rFkk fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr fd;s x;s fu.kZ; dh iqf"V fd;s tkus o vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls lafLFkr dh x;h vihy dks fujLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;kA 5- nksuksa i{kksa dks lquk x;kA i=koyh o fo}ku vf/kdj.k ds vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA 6- i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd ekeys dh ?kVuk fnukad 15-02-2020 dh crkbZ x;h gS rFkk oDr ?kVuk e`rdk iwtk pkS/kjh dks 25 o"kZ dh vk;q dk gksuk crkrs gq, jktLFkku iqfyl esa dkaLVscy ds in ij inLFkkfir gksdj 32]615@& #i;s ekfld osru izkIr djuk crk;k x;k gS] ftlds laca/k esa vihykFkhZx.k }kjk e`rdk dh ekg tuojh] 2020 dh osru fLyi izn'kZ&21 rFkk e`rdk dk foRrh; o"kZ 2019&2020 dk th-, 55, izn'kZ&17 fo}ku vf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;kA fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk e`rdk ds th-,- 55, izn'kZ&17 o e`rdk dh ekg tuojh] 2020 dh osru fLyi izn'kZ&21 ij fo'okl djrs gq, e`rdk dh vk; esa dsoyek= csfld is 22]000@& #i;s o Mh-,- 2]640@& #i;s dks tksM+k tkdj e`rdk dh ekfld vk; 24]640@& #i;s fu/kkZfjr dh x;hA tcfd fo}ku vf/kdj.k dks osru fLyi izn'kZ&21 esa n'kkZ;s x;s leLr HkRrksa dks e`rdk dh vk; esa lfEefyr fd;k tkdj e`rdk dh vk; fu/kkZfjr dh tkuh pkfg, FkhA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d n`"Vkar ehuk{kh ¼mijksDr½ ds ekeys esa fuEufyf[kr er O;Dr fd;k gS fd %& "9. Recently in a judgment dated 11th July, 2024 in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nalini and Ors. [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 4230/2019], this Court held that, allowances under the heads of transport allowance, house rent allowance, provident fund loan, provident fund and special allowance ought to be added while considering the basic salary of [2026:RJ-JP:2032] (4 of 9) [CMA-399/2023] the victim/deceased to arrive at the dependency factor. 10. Therefore, components of house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan and company contribution to provident fund have to be included in the salary of the deceased while applying the component of rise in income by future prospects to determine the dependency factor. The Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in factoring these components into the salary of the deceased, before applying 50% rise by future prospects due to future prospects, while calculating the total compensation payable to the Appellant. 12. 10. Therefore, components of house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan and company contribution to provident fund have to be included in the salary of the deceased while applying the component of rise in income by future prospects to determine the dependency factor. The Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in factoring these components into the salary of the deceased, before applying 50% rise by future prospects due to future prospects, while calculating the total compensation payable to the Appellant. 12. We, therefore, hold that the High Court has erred while omitting to add the components of house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan and Company contribution to provident fund to the basic salary of the deceased while applying the principle of rise in income by future prospects." 7- bl izdkj ;g U;k;ky;] ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d n`"Vkar ehuk{kh ¼mijksDr½ ds ekeys esa ikfjr fd;s x;s er ls lger gksrs gq, e`rdk dh vk; mlds osru fLyi izn'kZ&21 esa n'kkZ;s x;s leLr HkRrksa dks lfEefyr djrs gq, e`rdk dh vk; 32]615@& #i;s ekfld] rn~uqlkj okf"kZd vk; 3]91]380@& #i;s fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk mfpr le>rh gSA tgka rd e`rdk dh mijksDr fu/kkZfjr okf"kZd vk; esa ls vk;dj dVkSrh fd;s tkus dk iz'u gS rks bl laca/k esa vk;dj foHkkx }kjk foRrh; o"kZ 2019&2020 esa tkjh vf/klwpuk ds vuqlkj 2]50]000@& #i;s rd dh vk; ij vk;dj 'kwU;] 2]50]000@& #i;s ls 5]00]000@& #i;s rd dh vk; ij 05 izfr'kr vk;dj rFkk 5]00]000@& #i;s ls 10]00]000@& #i;s rd dh vk; ij 20 izfr'kr vk;dj ns; FkkA e`rdk dh fu/kkZfjr okf"kZd vk; 3]91]380@& #i;s esa ls 2]50]000@& #i;s ?kVkus ds mijkar 'ks"k jkf'k 1]41]380@& #i;s gksrh gS] ftldk 05 izfr'kr vk;dj 7]069@& #i;s gksrk gS tks jkf'k e`rdk dh fu/kkZfjr okf"kZd vk; esa ls vk;dj dVkSrh ds [2026:RJ-JP:2032] (5 of 9) [CMA-399/2023] QyLo:i dkVk tkuk visf{kr gSA ,slh fLFkfr ;g U;k;ky; mDr 7]069@& #i;s dh jkf'k dks e`rdk dh fu/kkZfjr okf"kZd vk; 3]91]380@& #i;s esa ls ?kVkrs gq, e`rdk dh dqy okf"kZd vk; 3]84]311@& #i;s fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk mfpr le>rh gSA Dyse ;kfpdk esa oDr ?kVuk e`rdk dks 25 o"kZ dh vk;q dk gksuk crk;k x;k gS rFkk fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk e`rdk dh ek/;fed f'k{kk dh vadrkfydk izn'kZ&20, esa vafdr tUefrfFk 06-06-1994 ds vuqlkj oDr ?kVuk e`rdk dh vk;q 25 o"kZ] 08 ekg gksuk fu/kkZfjr dh x;h gSA pwafd oDr ?kVuk e`rdk 25 o"kZ] 08 ekg vk;q dh osru Hkksxh deZpkjh Fkh] u fd Lofu;ksftr O;olk;hA ,slh fLFkfr esa us'kuy ba';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM cuke iz.k; lsBh o vU; fjiksVsZM bu ¼2017½ 16 ,l-lh-lh- 680 ds ekeys esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds vuqlkj e`rdk dh vk;q dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, e`rdk dh fu/kkZfjr okf"kZd vk; ij Hkfo"; dh izR;k'kk dh en esa 50 izfr'kr dh Hkfo"; o`f) fd;k tkuk visf{kr gSA rn~uqlkj e`rdk dh fu/kkZfjr okf"kZd vk; 3]84]311@& #i;s dk 50 izfr'kr 1]92]156@& #i;s gksrk gSA mDr 50 izfr'kr jkf'k dks e`rdk dh fu/kkZfjr okf"kZd vk; esa tksM+s tkus ds mijkar e`rdk dh dqy okf"kZd vk; 5]76]467@& #i;s gksrh gS] tks {kfriwfrZ ds fu/kkZj.k dk vk/kkj jgsxhA 8- oDr ?kVuk e`rdk vfookfgr FkhA ,slh fLFkfr esa e`rdk ds O;fDrxr [kpZ dh dVkSrh ds en esa 1@2 Hkkx dh dVkSrh fd;k tkuk visf{kr gSA rn~uqlkj e`rdk dh fu/kkZfjr okf"kZd vk; 5]76]467@& #i;s dk 1@2 Hkkx 2]88]233@& #i;s gksrk gS] ftls fu/kkZfjr okf"kZd vk; esa ls ?kVkus ds mijkar vkfJr vk; dh 'ks"k jkf'k 2]88]233@& #i;s gksrh gSA fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk oDr ?kVuk e`rdk dh vk;q 25 o"kZ] 08 ekg fu/kkZfjr djrs gq, vkfJr vk; dh {kfriwfrZ dh x.kuk gsrq 17 dk xq.kd iz;ksx fd;k tkdj =qfV dkfjr dh x;h gSA tcfd e`rdk dh vk;q dks n`f"VXkr j[krs gq, 18 dk xq.kd yxk;k tkuk visf{kr FkkA bl laca/k esa gekjk ekuuk ;g gS fd oDr ?kVuk e`rdk dh vk;q 25 o"kZ ls rks vf/kd Fkh] fdUrq e`rdk iw.kZ :i ls 26 o"kZ vk;q dh ugha gqbZ FkhA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre [2026:RJ-JP:2032] (6 of 9) [CMA-399/2023] U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d n`"Vkar M.H. Uma Maheshwari & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2020 (2) R.A.R. 185 (SC) ds ekeys esa ;g er O;Dr fd;k gS fd %& "9. The Tribunal, by recording a finding that the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years, applied the multiplier of 13 while calculating the compensation. The High Court, curiously while maintaining the multiplier of 13 as per the judgment of this Court in compensation only on the ground that the deceased was aged 50 years 3 months on the date of the accident, as such the compensation is to be calculated on account of loss of dependency by granting future prospects at 15% but not 30%. So far as the application of multiplier of 13 by the Tribunal is concerned, the High Court has not interfered with the same. When the age of the deceased was considered in the group of 40 to 50 years, we are of the view that the High Court has committed error in granting only 15% towards future prospects instead of 30%. As per the judgments of this Court, primarily the age group is to be considered. Considering the age group as 40 to 50 years, when the multiplier of 13 is maintained by the High Court, there is no reason or justification for reducing the compensation by granting 15% towards future prospects. Though the learned counsel appearing for Respondent 1 Insurance Company has submitted that the compensation towards future prospects was awarded as per the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi3 but at the same time it is to be noticed that in the very same judgment in para 59.3, while considering the grant of future prospects, this Court has specifically said that the addition should be 30% if the age of the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. For application of multiplier, the High Court has also accepted the age group of the deceased between 40 and 50 years. In [2026:RJ-JP:2032] (7 of 9) [CMA-399/2023] that view of the matter, there is no reason for reducing the compensation by granting future prospects at 15% only." 9- bl izdkj ,e-,p- mek egs'ojh ¼mijksDr½ ds ekeys esa ikfjr erkuqlkj ;g U;k;ky; e`rdk dks oDr ?kVuk 21 ls 25 o"kZ ds vk;q oxZ esa ekurs gq, ljyk oekZ o vU; cuke nsgyh VªklaiksVZ dkWiksZjs'ku o vU; fjiksVsZM bu ¼2009½ 6 ,l-lh-lh- 121 rFkk iz.k; lsBh ¼mijksDr½ ds ekeys esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds vk/kkj ij e`rdk dh vk;q dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, 18 dk xq.kd yxk;k tkuk mfpr le>rh gSA rn~uqlkj e`rdk dh fu/kkZfjr okf"kZd vk; 2]88]233@& #i;s ds vk/kkj ij vihykFkhZx.k dks gksus okyh vkfJr vk; dh dqy {kfr 2]88]233 x 18 = 51]88]194@& #i;s gksrh gS tks vihykFkhZx.k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA 10- fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk izR;sd vihykFkhZ dks 40]000@& #i;s] bl izdkj dqy 2]00]000@& #i;s dh jkf'k dalksfVZ;e dh en esa fnyokbZ x;h gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar iz.k; lsBh ¼mijksDr½ o ;wukbZVsM bf.M;k ba';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM cuke lfrUnj dkSj mQZ lrfoUnj dkSj o vU; fjiksVsZM bu ¼2021½ 11 ,llhlh 780 o vU; U;kf;d n`"Vkar esxek tujy ba';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM cuke ukuw jke mQZ pqg: jke o vU; fjiksVsZM bu ¼2018½ 18 ,llhlh 130 ds ekeyksa esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds vuqlkj izR;sd vkfJr dks 40]000@& #i;s dalksfVZ;e dh en esa fnyok;s tkus dk fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gSA 11- tgka rd dalksfVZ;e dh en esa] vafre laLdkj rFkk lEink dh gkfu ds en esa fnyokbZ tkus okyh fu/kkZfjr jkf'k esa c<+ksrjh fd;s tkus dk iz'u gS rks bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d n`"Vkar glhuk ;kLehu o vU; cuke us'kuy ba';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM o vU; fjiksVsMZ bu 2025 ,l-lh-lh- vkWuykbZu ,l-lh- 2919 esa fuEufyf[kr er O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd %& "7. According to us, the Constitution Bench decision only provided for an enhancement of 10% in every three-year period with [2026:RJ-JP:2032] (8 of 9) [CMA-399/2023] respect to accidents which occurred after 2017, the first enhancement being applied in 2020. Otherwise, as is indicated in the cited decision; which we find, with due respect, difficult to accept, the accident in 2010 is applied with a 10% increase when it is disposed of in 2020 and a further 10% increase if the matter is finally disposed of in 2023. This with due respect is not the purport of the decision in Pranay Sethi1, as we understand it. There cannot be any enhancement made with respect to an accident which occurred in the year 1998, since the compensation for loss of estate and consortium as also expenses incurred for funeral is as on that date, which has been standardized by Pranay Sethi at 15,000/-, 40,000/- & 15,000/-, the delay in payment of which is compensated by the interest directed to be paid." 12- ,slh fLFkfr ;g U;k;ky;] ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar glhuk ;kLehu ¼mijksDr½] iz.k; lsBh ¼mijksDr½] lfrUnj dkSj mQZ lrfoUnj dkSj ¼mijksDr½ o ukuw jke mQZ pqg: jke ¼mijksDr½ ds ekeyksa esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds vuqlkj fu/kkZfjr ns; jkf'k ij nl izfr'kr dh c<+ksrjh djrs gq, e`rdk ds ekrk&firk] vihykFkhZ la[;k&1 o 2 rFkk e`rdk ds HkkbZ&cgu vihykFkhZ la[;k&3 yxk;r 5 dks **fQfy;y dalksfVZ;e** dh en esa izR;sd dks 44]000@& #i;s ¼dqy 2]20]000@& #i;s½ dh jkf'k fnyok;k tkuk mfpr le>rs gSaA 13- fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk vihykFkhZx.k dks vafre laLdkj dh en esa 15]000@& #i;s rFkk lEink dh gkfu ds en esa 15]000@& #i;s dh jkf'k fnyokbZ x;h gS tks de gSA vr% vafre laLdkj o lEink dh gkfu ds en esa ge] glhuk ;kLehu ¼mijksDr½ o iz.k; lsBh ¼mijksDr½ ds ekeys esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds vuqlkj fu/kkZfjr ns; jkf'k ij nl izfr'kr dh c<+ksrjh djrs gq, 16]500&16]500@& #i;s ¼dqy 33]000@& #i;s½ dh jkf'k mDr enksa esa vihykFkhZx.k dks fnyok;k tkuk mfpr le>rs gSaA [2026:RJ-JP:2032] (9 of 9) [CMA-399/2023] 14- mijksDr lexz foospu vuqlkj vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls lafLFkr dh xbZ mDr vihy dks vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vihykFkhZx.k fuEu izdkj ls {kfriwfrZ jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa %& Øe la- 'kh"kZ@en bl fu.kZ; ds rgr fu/kkZfjr dh x;h jkf’k ¼:i;s esa½ 1- vkfJr vk; dh {kfr ds en esa 51]88]194@& 2- dalksfVZ;e ds en esa dqy 2]20]000@& 3- vafre laLdkj ds en esa 16]500@& 4- lEink dh gkfu ds en esa 16]500@& bl U;k;ky; }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ dqy {kfriwfrZ jkf'k 54]41]194@& fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk fnyokbZ xbZ {kfriwfrZ jkf'k ¼&½ 39]99]920@& c<+ksrjh i'pkr {kfriwfrZ jkf'k esa varj 14]41]274@& 15- rnuqlkj vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g vihy vkaf’kd :i ls Lohdkj dh tkdj fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr iapkV] ftlds }kjk vihykFkhZx.k@DysesaV~l dks 39]99]920@& :i;s fnyok;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ds LFkku ij 54]41]194@& :i;s dk iapkV ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA vihykFkhZx.k dks ns; {kfriwfrZ jkf'k ij fu;ekuqlkj vk;dj dVkSrh dh tkosxhA vihykFkhZx.k }kjk iwoZ esa izkIr dh x;h jkf’k dks iapkV jkf’k esa ls lek;ksftr fd;k tkdj 'ks"k jkf’k vihykFkhZx.k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ik;s tkrs gSaA 16- bl vkns'k }kjk c<+kbZ xbZ {kfriwfrZ jkf'k ij ;kfpdk nk;j djus dh frfFk ls vihykFkhZx.k] 08 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA 17- vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk izdj.k dk vfHkys[k lacaf/kr fo}ku vf/kdj.k dks vfoyEc ykSVk;k tkosA 18- rnuqlkj ;g vihy fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA 19- lHkh yfEcr izkFkZuk&i=ksa dks Hkh mijksDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J LOKESH RAJ/38