[2026:RJ-JP:14026] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1781/2012 1. Durga W/o Late Prahlad, Aged about 26 years 2. Bhumija D/o Late Prahlad, Aged about 5 years, minor 3. Jaiprakash S/o Late Prahlad, Aged about 2 years, Both No.2 and 3 being minor, through her natural guardian mother Smt. Durga W/o Late Prahlad. 4. Ladi W/o Late Gokul, Aged about 56 years, All Residents of Village Rajpura, Tehsil Kekri, Distt. Ajmer. ----Appellants Versus 1. Shafika S/o Fakruddin, R/o Behind Sabjimandi, Bundi, Distt. Bundi (Driver – Roadways Bus No.RJ-08-PA-0331) 2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bundi, Agar Bundi, (Registered Owner Roadways Bus No. RJ-08-PA-0331) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain with Mr. Vaibhav Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Goyal Ms. Nisha Shekhawat for Mr. Sudarshan Laddha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 06/04/2026 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants (for short ‘claimants’) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 02.02.2012 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kekri, Ajmer (for short ‘Tribunal’) in MACT Case No.182/2010, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was partly allowed. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimants filed a claim petition stating therein that on 09.09.2010, when Prahlad was proceeding towards his agricultural field on his motorcycle, at around 10 AM, a roadways bus bearing registration No. RJ-08-PA- [2026:RJ-JP:14026] (2 of 5) [CMA-1781/2012] 0331, driven by the respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, hit Prahlad’s motorcycle. As a result of the said accident, Prahlad sustained grievous injuries and subsequently he died. 2.1 The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.95,68,100/- under various heads. 2.2 The respondents filed reply to the claim petition and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 2.3 On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues and after evaluating the evidence on record, vide impugned order dated 02.02.2012, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.4,23,000/-, in favour of the claimants, along with interest @ 6% per annum payable thereon from the date of filing the claim petition till its actual payment. 3. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 02.02.2012, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation so awarded. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants has made the following submissions:- (i) At the time of accident, the deceased was working as a driver, who used to drive his own Maruti Van for last more than one year and was also earning from the supply of milk. The learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. The job of a driver is a skilled work and hence, as per the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker, the income of the deceased should have been assessed as Rs.3,450/- per month. (ii) The learned Tribunal has erred in omitting to make addition in the income of the deceased towards future prospects. [2026:RJ-JP:14026] (3 of 5) [CMA-1781/2012] (iii) The learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, however, considering the number of dependants i.e. 4, deduction of 1/4th of the income of the deceased should have been made towards personal expenses. (iv) Under the head of loss of consortium, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the wife of the deceased and Rs.5,000/- to rest of the claimants, whereas each of the claimants is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- under the said head. (v) The compensation awarded towards funeral expenses, being Rs.5,000/-, also deserves to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. (vi) Compensation of Rs.15,000/- should also be granted under the head of loss of estate. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the claimants and has supported the impugned judgment and award. It is submitted that the claimants had failed to produce any proof of the income of deceased, therefore, learned Tribunal was justified in assessing the monthly income as Rs.3,000/- and therefore, has prayed that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The first issue raised by learned counsel for the claimants is that the deceased was working as a driver, however, neither the driving license of the deceased nor the permit of the vehicle has been produced by the claimants. Further, there is no substance in the contention of learned counsel for the claimants that the deceased was driving his own Maruti Van for last more than one year as the registration certificate of [2026:RJ-JP:14026] (4 of 5) [CMA-1781/2012] the said Maruti Van (Exhibit – 26), is of 23.07.2010 i.e. only one and a half months prior to the date of accident. This Court finds that the claimants failed to adduce any cogent evidence in order to prove that the deceased was working as a driver, and therefore, under these circumstances, the learned Tribunal was justified in determining the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month being equal to the minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker at the time of accident. 8. Further, so far as the rest of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the claimants are concerned, in view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is of the opinion that: (i) Considering the age of the deceased i.e. 26 years, addition @ 40% shall be made in the income of the deceased towards future prospects. (ii) Since, at the time of accident, the deceased had four dependants, therefore, deduction of 1/4th of the income of the deceased shall be made towards his personal expenses. (iii) Each of the claimants is entitled to get compensation of Rs.40,000/- separately, under the head of loss of consortium. (iv) The claimants are also entitled to get Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate. (v) Compensation of Rs.15,000/- shall be awarded towards funeral expenses. 9. In view of the above discussion, the compensation payable to the claimants is re-computed as under:- [2026:RJ-JP:14026] (5 of 5) [CMA-1781/2012] S.No. Particular Amount assessed 1. Monthly Income Rs.3,000/- 2. Annual Income Rs.3,000 X 12 = Rs.36,000/- 3. According to the age of the deceased i.e. 26 years, multiplier of 17 to be applied Rs.36,000 x 17 = Rs.6,12,000/- 4. As per dependency, 1/4th income to be deduced for personal expenses of the deceased (-) Rs.6,12,000/- – Rs.1,53,000/- = Rs.4,59,000/- 5. Add 40% towards future prospects (+) Rs.4,59,000/- + Rs.1,83,600/- = Rs.6,42,600/- 6. Total loss of dependency Rs.6,42,600/- 7. Loss of consortium (Four claimants) Rs.40,000/- x 4 = Rs.1,60,000/- 8. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 9. Loss of funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Compensation (S.No.6+7+8+9) Rs.8,32,600/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal (-) Rs.4,23,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.4,09,600/- 10. Accordingly, the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.4,09,600/-. The rest of the impugned award shall remain intact. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from today. 11. It is directed that the enhanced amount shall carry the rate of interest in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal, from the date of filing of the claim petition. The enhanced amount shall be disbursed in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 12. The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 13. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J SAHIL SONI /13