[2026:RJ-JP:11540] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1819/2009 1. Samander S/o Shri Mohan Singh 2. Smt. Shree W/o Shri Samander, 3. Samay Singh S/o Shri Samander, age 8 years, (Minor through his Natural Guardian Father Shri Samander S/o Shri Mohan Singh 4. Nageena D/o Shri Samander, aged 13 years (Minor through her Natural Guardian Father Shri Samander S/o Shri Mohan, All R/o Village Gadi Burana, Tehsil Roopwas District Bharatpur Raj. ----Appellants Versus 1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Head Office New India Assurance Building, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai Through Branch Manager The New India Assurance Company Limited., Branch Office New Mandi Bharatpur Raj (Insurance Company) 2. Shri Vijay Singh S/o Shri Rajpal R/o House No. 21, Rasta Gour, Ward No. 2, Bhatar Badi, Bayana, Thesil Bayana, District Bharatpur Raj. (Owner Of Vehicle) 3. Shri Munshi Singh S/o Shri Khiladi Singh, R/o Karwan, Tehsil Bair, District Bharatpur, Raj. (Driver Of Vehicle) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sahil Duseja for Mr. Dinesh Kala For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishipal Agarwal with Mr. Vimal Kumar Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 18/03/2026 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants- claimants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the claimants’) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and [2026:RJ-JP:11540] (2 of 6) [CMA-1819/2009] award dated 05.07.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (ADJ No. 1) Bayana, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in Motor Accident Case No. 18/2007 (70/2005) whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was partly allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the claim petition, are that on 25.12.2004, while Prem Singh was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. RJ-11-C-0562, a dumper (truck) bearing registration No. RJ-25-G-0284, being driven by the respondent No. 3 (driver of the offending vehicle) in rash and negligent manner, hit the said jeep, as a result of which, Prem Singh succumbed to injuries. 2.1 Thereafter, a claim petition was filed by the claimants seeking compensation, by alleging that at the time of said accident, the age of deceased was 17 years and he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. 2.2 On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed seven issues and after evaluating the evidence on record, the claim petition was partly allowed and a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the claim petition till the recovery of the amount. 2.3 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, this appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation so awarded. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that- i. The learned Tribunal has erred in treating the deceased as non-working member. He further contended that since [2026:RJ-JP:11540] (3 of 6) [CMA-1819/2009] the deceased was a minor, the computation of compensation for the loss of income should have been made by adopting minimum wages payable to the skilled workers at the relevant point of time. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10278/2025, Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. decided on 08.08.2025. ii. In view of the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, addition of future prospects @ 40% should be awarded by this Court while calculating the income of the deceased. iii. The compensation towards loss of consortium as Rs.40,000/- should also be awarded to each claimant. iv. The funeral expenses awarded by the learned Tribunal should be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. v. The compensation of Rs. 15,000/- should also be awarded against the head of loss of estate. 4. Learned counsel for the insurance company has opposed the submissions made hereinabove by learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable, therefore, requires no interference by this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. [2026:RJ-JP:11540] (4 of 6) [CMA-1819/2009] 6. It is undisputed that deceased was minor on the date of accident and the learned Tribunal has assessed the income treating him as a non-earning member. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra) has held that in the case of death of a minor, he cannot be placed in the category of non-earning individual and the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting minimum wages payable to a skilled workman. In this regard, relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the Courts below. In the present case, it is evident that the Courts below have failed to take into account the monthly income of the appellant while determining the quantum of compensation. It is now a well-entrenched and consistently reiterated principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises…” In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the income of the deceased is required to be assessed considering the minimum wages for a skilled workman as notified by the State Government. On the date of occurrence of accident, the minimum wages for skilled workman were payable as Rs. 81/- [2026:RJ-JP:11540] (5 of 6) [CMA-1819/2009] per day, hence, the loss of income of deceased would be calculated as per the said wages. 7. Moreover, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, this court is of the opinion that since the age of the deceased at the time of occurrence of accident was 17 years, the addition of future prospects @ 40% be awarded by calculating the compensation under the head of loss of income. 8. In light of the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are also entitled to get compensation towards the loss of consortium as Rs. 40,000/- each, Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. 9. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation as calculated hereunder:- S.No. Particular Amount assessed 1. Monthly Income Rs. 81X30 = Rs.2,430/- 2. Annual Income Rs. 2,430X12 = Rs.29,160/- 3. According to the age of the deceased i.e. 17 years, multiplier 18 to be applied Rs.29,160X18 =Rs.5,24,880/- 4. As per dependency, 1/2 income to be deduced for personal expenses of the deceased (-) Rs.5,24,880-Rs.2,62,440 =Rs.2,62,440/- 5. Add 40% towards future prospects (+) Rs.2,62,440+Rs.1,04,976 =Rs.3,67,416/- 6. Loss of consortium (four dependants) Rs.40,000 x 4 = Rs.1,60,000/- [2026:RJ-JP:11540] (6 of 6) [CMA-1819/2009] 7. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 8. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation Rs.5,57,416/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal (-) Rs.2,50,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 3,07,416/- 10. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.3,07,416/-. The remaining terms and conditions 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. 14. Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J SKS/17