[2026:RJ-JP:5574] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1968/2022 1. Rinku S/o Late Budharam, Aged 25 Years, 2. Mohit S/o Late Budharam, Aged About 23 Years, Both R/o Madanpuri Tehsil And District Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Appellants-Claimants Versus 1. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd, Add. Plot No. E.L.-94, T.T.C. Industrial Area, M.I.D.C., Mahapae Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400710. 2. Ghanshyam S/o Ramjilal, R/o Village Bhajit, P.S. M.I.A. Alwar (Raj.) Owner Of Vehicle Motorcycle No. R.J.40-S.A.- 1146. 3. Rafik Khan S/o Hakamdin Khan, R/o Village Kakrali, P.S. Sadar, District Alwar. (Rajasthan) Driver Of Motorcycle No. RJ-40-SA-1146. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 19/01/2026 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] vyoj ¼ftls vkxs ^fo}ku vf/kdj.k* ds uke ls lacksf/kr fd;k tk,xk½ }kjk Dyse ;kfpdk la[;k&310@2018 fjadw o vU; cuke ;wfuolZy lksEiks tujy ba';ksjsal daiuh fyfeVsM o vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 27-04-2022 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 cq)kjke dh eksVj okgu nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q gks tkus ds QyLo:i dqy 1]08]47]130@& #i;s Dyse [2026:RJ-JP:5574] (2 of 10) [CMA-1968/2022] izkIr djus gsrq Dyse ;kfpdk izLrqr dh x;hA fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk mDr Dyse ;kfpdk dk fuLrkj.k djrs gq, vihykFkhZx.k dks dqy 37]236@& #i;s dh {kfriwfrZ jkf’k e; C;kt 7-5 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 ;s 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`rd dh dksbZ vk; fu/kkZfjr ugha dj =qfV dkfjr dh xbZ gS] tcfd e`rd nq?kZVuk ls iwoZ t;iqj fo|qr forj.k fuxe fyfeVsM ls lsokfuo`Rr Fkk rFkk oDr ?kVuk isa'ku ds :i esa 14]381@& #i;s o lCth mxkdj cspus dk dk;Z dj 6]000@& #i;s] dqy 20]381@& :i;s izfrekg dh vk; vftZr djrk FkkA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZx.k dk ;g Hkh rdZ jgk 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 U;k;ky; dk /;ku fuEu U;kf;d n`"Vkar dh vksj vkdf"kZr fd;k x;k %& • National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birender & Ors. Birender & Ors. reported in 2020 ACJ 759 4- blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ chek dEiuh dh vksj ls vihykFkhZx.k ds mijksDr rdksZa dk fojks/k djrs gq, rdZ fn;k fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr fd;s x;s fu.kZ; dh iqf"V fd;s tkus rFkk 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 [2026:RJ-JP:5574] (3 of 10) [CMA-1968/2022] 6- i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd ekeys dh ?kVuk fnukad 21-11-2015 dh crkbZ x;h gS rFkk Dyse ;kfpdk esa vihykFkhZx.k }kjk e`rd dks nq?kZVuk ls iwoZ t;iqj fo|qr forj.k fuxe fyfeVsM ls lsokfuo`Rr Fkk rFkk oDr ?kVuk isa'ku ds :i esa 14]381@& #i;s o lCth mxkus o cspus ls 6]000@& #i;s] dqy 20]381@& :i;s izfrekg vk; vftZr djuk crk;k x;k gSA e`rd dh vk; ds laca/k esa vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls fo}ku vf/kdj.k ds le{k e`rd dk isa'ku nLrkost izn'kZ&30 o iklcqd izn'kZ&31 izLrqr fd, x,] ftlds vk/kkj ij fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk vihykFkhZx.k dks e`rd cq)kjke dh e`R;q ds i'pkr~ Hkh ikfjokfjd isa'ku ds :i esa 14]381@& #i;s izfrekg feyuk lkfcr gksuk ekurs gq, vihykFkhZx.k dks fdlh izdkj dh vk; dh {kfr gksuk ugha ekuk gSA fdarq ;g fufoZokn gS fd e`rd dks vius thoudky esa 14]381@& çfrekg dh fu;fer isa'ku çkIr gks jgh FkhA e`rd dh e`R;q mijkar mlds vkfJr iq=ksa dks 'kkldh; fu;eksa ds varxZr ikfjokfjd isa'ku ds :i esa iw.kZ isa'ku çkIr gks jgh gS] tks fd lhfer vofèk] vFkkZr~ 25 o"kZ dh vk;q vFkok jktLFkku ljdkj ds fu;eksa esa fuèkkZfjr vU; 'krZ iw.kZ gksus rd gh ns; gSA blds foijhr ;fn e`rd thfor jgrk rks mls mä isa'ku vkthou çkIr gksrh jgrhA 7- bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d n`"Vkar Hanumantharaju B. (Dead) By LR. Vs. M. Akram Pasha & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1106 ds ekeys esa fuEufy[kr er O;Dr fd;k gS %& “19. It is also now well settled that the amount of compensation is to be calculated on the basis of last drawn salary of the injured/deceased in respect of salaried persons and pension and such retirement benefits enjoyed cannot be deducted for computing the income, these being statutory rights receivable by the employee or his legal heirs irrespective of any unforeseen incident of accidents, fatal injuries etc. and such pensionary benefit is not directly relatable to the motor accident. Hence, pensionary benefit could not have been [2026:RJ-JP:5574] (4 of 10) [CMA-1968/2022] treated as “pecuniary advantage” liable to be deducted for the purpose of computation of compensation within the scope of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. For this proposition of law, we may refer to the decision in Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan (2013) 7 SCC 476, wherein this Court, by referring to the earlier decision in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC (1999) 1 SCC 90, held as follows:— 19. The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC [(1999) 1 SCC 90 :1999 SCC (Cri) 197]. In the said case, this Court held that provident fund, pension, insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a “pecuniary advantage” receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction. The following was the observation and finding of this Court : (SCC pp. 111-12, para 35) “35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event viz. accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No co-relation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which the insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the [2026:RJ-JP:5574] (5 of 10) [CMA-1968/2022] sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly, any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no co- relation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as ‘pecuniary advantage’ liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and same plane having nexus, inter se, between them and not to which there is no semblance of any co- relation. The insured (the deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no co- relation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act he receives without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual.” Thus, this Court has categorically held that any amount receivable on account of PF, pension or insurance cannot be deducted from the salary of the victim for the purpose of determining the income or loss of earning for calculating compensation. This principle was reiterated in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma (2016) 9 SCC 627 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birender (2020) 11 SCC 356." [2026:RJ-JP:5574] (6 of 10) [CMA-1968/2022] 8- vr% bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ge] U;kf;d n`"Vkar Hanumantharaju B. (supra) ds ekeys esa ikfjr er ls lger gksrs gq, oDr ?kVuk e`rd dks isa'ku Lo:i gksus okyh gkfu 14]381@& #i;s gksuk ikrs gSaA oDr ?kVuk e`rd ds dk;Z dh izd`fr rFkk ?kVuk dh frfFk 21-11-2015 dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq,] e`rd dks vdq'ky Jfed gksuk ekurs gq, rRle; izpfyr U;wure etnwjh nj ds vk/kkj ij mldh nSfud vk; 197@& #i;s] rn~uqlkj 197 x 30 = 5]910@& #i;s rFkk isa'ku Lo:i gksus okyh gkfu dh jkf'k 14]381@& #i;s] dks tksM+rs gq, dqy 20]291@& #i;s izfrekg fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk mfpr le>rs gSA Dyse ;kfpdk esa oDr ?kVuk e`rd dh vk;q 62 o"kZ crkbZ dh xbZ gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa us'kuy ba';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM cuke iz.k; lsBh o vU; fjiksVsZM bu ¼2017½ 16 ,l-lh-lh- 680 esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds vuqlkj dsoyek= 60 o"kZ dh vk;q rd ds O;fDr;ksa dh fu/kkZfjr vk; ij gh Hkfo"; o`f) ykxw fd;s tkus dk fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gSA vr% bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vihykFkhZ dh 62 dh vk;q dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, mldh vk; esa dksbZ Hkfo"; o`f) fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA bl izdkj e`rd dh dqy ekfld vk; 20]291@& #i;s gh {kfriwfrZ ds fu/kkZj.k dk vk/kkj jgsxhA 9- oDr ?kVuk e`rd ij dqy 2 vkfJr gksuk crk;k x;k gS] ftuesa vihykFkhZ la[;k&1 o 2 e`rd dh larkusa gaSA fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk vihykFkhZ la[;k 1 dks o;Ld gksus o O;olk; djus ds vk/kkj ij e`rd ij vkfJr gksuk ugha ekuk] tks =qfViw.kZ gSA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d n`"VkUr National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birender & Ors. reported in 2020 ACJ 759, esa ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd] "20. Similarly, the High Court despite having taken note of the submission made by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the deduction for personal expenses of the deceased should be reckoned only as one third amount for determining loss of [2026:RJ-JP:5574] (7 of 10) [CMA-1968/2022] dependency, maintained the deduction of 50% towards that head as ordered by the Tribunal. This Court in Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), in Para 39, adverted to the dictum of this Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), with approval, wherein it is held that if the dependent family members are 2 to 3, as in this case, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be taken as one third. In other words, the deduction towards personal expenses to the extent of 50% is excessive and not just and proper considering the fact that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 along with their respective families were staying with the deceased at the relevant time and were largely dependent on her income. 10- ,slh fLFkfr esa ge] mijksDr U;kf;d n`"VkUr Birender (Supra) esa ikfjr er ls lger gksrs gq, oDr ?kVuk e`rd ij 2 vkfJr gksuk ekudj e`rd ds O;fDrxr [kpZ dh dVkSrh ds en eas 1@3 Hkkx dh dVkSrh fd;k tkuk mfpr le>rs gSaA rn~uqlkj 20]291@&#i;s dk 1@3 Hkkx 6]764@&#i;s gksrk gS] ftls fu/kkZfjr ekfld vk; esa ls ?kVkus ds mijkar vkfJr vk; dh 'ks"k jkf'k 13]527@&#i;s gksrh gSA oDr ?kVuk e`rd dh vk;q 61 ls 65 o"kZ ds e/; gksuk tkfgj gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa 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`rd dh vk;q dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, 7 dk xq.kd yxk;k tkuk visf{kr gSA rn~uqlkj e`rd dh fu/kkZfjr vk; ds vk/kkj ij vihykFkhZx.k dks gksus okyh vkfJr vk; dh dqy {kfr 13]527 x 12 x 7 = 11]36]268@&#i;s gksrh gS tks vihykFkhZx.k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA 11- fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk dalksfVZ;e dh en esa vihykFkhZx.k dks dksbZ jkf'k ugha 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 [2026:RJ-JP:5574] (8 of 10) [CMA-1968/2022] 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 12- bl laca/k esa fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd iz.k; lsBh ¼mijksDr½ esa fn;s x;s fn'kk&funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj izR;sd 3 o"kZ esa dalksfVZ;e] vafre laLdkj o lEink dh gkfu dh en esa 10 izfr'kr jkf'k c<+k;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k gS] blfy, bl ekeys esa Hkh mDr enksa esa 10 izfr'kr dh o`f) dh tkdj {kfriwfrZ jkf'k fnykbZ tkosA 13- tgka rd dalksfVZ;e dh en esa] vafre laLdkj rFkk lEink dh gkfu ds en esa fnyokbZ x;h 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; fjiksVsZM 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 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 [2026:RJ-JP:5574] (9 of 10) [CMA-1968/2022] of which is compensated by the interest directed to be paid." 14- ,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 e`rd ds iq= vihykFkhZ la[;k&1 o 2 dks ^^iSjs.Vy dalksfVZ;e** dh en esa izR;sd dks 40]000@& #i;s ¼dqy 80]000@& #i;s½ dh jkf'k fnyok;k tkuk mfpr le>rs gSaA 15- fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk vihykFkhZx.k dks vafre laLdkj dh en esa 15]000@& #i;s o lEink dh gkfu ds en esa 15]000@& #i;s rFkk esfMdy fcyksa dh en esa 7]236@& #i;s dh jkf'k fnyokbZ x;h gS] ftlesa ge dksbZ gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha le>rs gSaA 16- mDrkuqlkj 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 11]36]268@& 2- dalksfVZ;e ds en esa dqy 80]000@& 3- vafre laLdkj ds en esa 15]000@& 4- lEink dh gkfu ds en esa 15]000@& 5- esfMdy fcyksa dh en esa 7]236@& bl U;k;ky; }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ dqy {kfriwfrZ jkf'k 12]53]504@& fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk fnyokbZ xbZ {kfriwfrZ jkf'k ¼&½ 37]236@& c<+ksrjh i'pkr {kfriwfrZ jkf'k esa varj 12]16]268@& 17- rnuqlkj ;g vihy vkaf’kd :i ls Lohdkj dh tkdj fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr iapkV] ftlds }kjk vihykFkhZx.k@DysesaV~l dks 37]236@& :i;s fnyok;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ds LFkku ij 12]53]504@& :i;s dk iapkV ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA mDr jkf'k ij fu;ekuqlkj vk;dj dVkSrh dh tk,xhA 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 vihykFkhZ izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ik;s tkrs gSaA [2026:RJ-JP:5574] (10 of 10) [CMA-1968/2022] 18- bl vkns'k }kjk c<+kbZ xbZ {kfriwfrZ jkf'k ij ;kfpdk nk;j djus dh frfFk ls vihykFkhZx.k 8 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA 19- vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk izdj.k dk vfHkys[k lacaf/kr vf/kdj.k dks ykSVk;k tkosA 20- rnuqlkj ;g vihy fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA 21- lHkh yfEcr izkFkZuk&i=ksa dks Hkh mijksDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J KESHAV VERMA /98-S