[2026:RJ-JP:13733] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4545/2011 1. Jagdish Mani S/o Sh. Lasman Das Mani, aged 39 years, 2. Divya Mani W/o Sh. Jagdish Mani, aged 36 years, Both R/o M.No. 551-A, Sindhi Colony, Jaipur ----Appellants / Claimants Versus 1. Bhanwar Lal Jat S/o Sh. Deva Lal Jat, R/o Village Rajwas, Tehsil Niwai, Distt. Tonk (Driver) 2. Kalu Ram Jat S/o Sh. Jagannath Jat, R/o Village Ramchandra Vidhani, Sanganer, Jaipur (Owner) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur ----Respondent/Defendants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 02/04/2026 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants- claimants (hereinafter referred to as ‘claimants’) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 27.07.2007, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast-Track) No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ‘Court’) in Claim Petition No. 223/2006 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was partly allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.11.2005, Rahul Mani aged about 8 years was playing with other children near his house situated at Mansarovar, Jaipur. At around 01:00 PM, a truck, bearing registration No. RJ-14-1G-6636, being driven by [2026:RJ-JP:13733] (2 of 6) [CMA-4545/2011] respondent no. 1, in rash and negligent manner, hit the child as a result of which, he died. 3. The claimants filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.9,20,000/- on account of death of Rahul Mani. The respondent-Insurance Company filed reply to the claim petition and denied its liabilities to pay compensation. 4. The learned Court vide impugned judgment and award partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of claim petition till the actual payment, in favour of the claimants. 5. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, this appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation so awarded. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants has made the following submissions:- i. While calculating the compensation under the head of loss of dependency, the learned Court has committed error by taking Rs.15,000/- as notional annual income of the deceased, however, since the deceased was a minor, the compensation under the said head is required to be assessed on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker on the date of accident with multiplier of 15. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 10278/2025, decided on 08.08.2025 and [2026:RJ-JP:13733] (3 of 6) [CMA-4545/2011] Devendra Kumar Tripathi Vs. Oriental Insurance Company & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 14756/2025, decided on 15.12.2025. ii. The learned Court has erred in omitting to make addition @40% in the income of deceased towards future prospects. iii. Each of the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. iv. The claimants are further entitled to get compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. v. Compensation of Rs.15,000/- should also be granted under the head of funeral expenses. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made hereinabove by learned counsel for the claimants and has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Court is just and reasonable, therefore, requires no interference by this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is undisputed that deceased was a minor on the date of accident. 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:- [2026:RJ-JP:13733] (4 of 6) [CMA-4545/2011] “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 on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled workman. Undisputedly, on the date of accident, the minimum wages as notified in the State of Rajasthan for a skilled workman were Rs.81/- per day, hence, the loss of dependency of deceased would be calculated as per the said wages. 7. So far as application of multiplier is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Tripathi (supra) applied the multiplier of 15 in the case of death of a minor boy of 14 years. In the instant case as well, the deceased was a minor of 8 years, hence, while calculating the loss of dependency, the multiplier of 15 will be applied. 8. Moreover, in light of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimants are also entitled to get compensation as follows: [2026:RJ-JP:13733] (5 of 6) [CMA-4545/2011] i. Since the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 8 years, therefore, while calculating the loss of dependency, addition @ 40% will be made in the income of the deceased towards future prospects. ii. Each of the claimants will be awarded Rs.40,000/- separately, under the head of loss of consortium. iii. Rs. 15,000/- will be awarded towards loss of estate. iv. Rs. 15,000/- will be awarded for funeral expenses. 9. Thus, in view of the above, the compensation payable to the claimants is re-assessed as hereunder:- S.No. Particular Amount assessed 1. Monthly Income Rs.81 X 30 = Rs.2,430/- 2. Annual Income Rs.2,430 X 12 = Rs.29,160/- 3. According to the age of the deceased i.e. 8 years, multiplier 15 to be applied Rs.29,160 X 15 = Rs.4,37,400/- 4. Add 40% towards future prospects (+) Rs.4,37,400 + Rs.1,74,960 = Rs.6,12,360/- 5. As per dependency, 1/2 income to be deduced for personal expenses of the deceased (-) Rs.6,12,360 – Rs.3,06,180 = Rs.3,06,180/- 6. Loss of consortium (Two claimants) Rs.40,000 x 2 = Rs.80,000/- 7. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 8. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation (S.No. 5+6+7+8) Rs.4,16,180/- Less amount awarded by the Court (-) Rs.2,25,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 1,91,180/- 10. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Court is enhanced by Rs.1,91,180/-. The rest of the impugned award [2026:RJ-JP:13733] (6 of 6) [CMA-4545/2011] 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 Court, from the date of filing of the claim petition. The enhanced amount shall be disbursed in terms of the award passed by the learned Court. 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 Court forthwith. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J SKS/12