[2026:RJ-JP:15914] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5690/2016 1. Jayanihal Chandani W/o Late Shri Mohanlal Nihalchandani, age about 40 years, R/o Chota Takhta, Telion Ki Gali, Tonk 2. Vinod Kumar S/o Late Shri Mohanlal Nihalchandani, age about 40 years, R/o Chota Takhta, Telion Ki Gali, Tonk 3. Hemlata D/o Late Shri Mohanlal Nihalchandani, age about 40 years, R/o Chota Takhta, Telion Ki Gali, Tonk ----Appellants/Claimants Versus 1. Mohammad Mumtaj S/o Mohd. Akil, By Caste Musalman, Kumharon Ki Chowki, Kalipaltan, Tonk 2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through General Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur ----Respondents/Non-claimants Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6043/2016 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (R.S.R.T.C), Through Its General Manager, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur, Rajasthan (Registered Owner, Vehicle Bus No. RJ-26-PA- 00443) ----Appellant Versus 1. Jaya Nihal Chandani W/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal Nihal Chandani,age about 40 years, R/o Chhota Takhta, Teliyon Ki Gali, Tonk 2. Vinod Kumar S/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal Nihal Chandani, age about 20 years, R/o Chhota Takhta, Teliyon Ki Gali, Tonk 3. Hemlaea D/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal Nihal Chandani, age about 19 years, R/o Chhota Takhta, Teliyon Ki Gali, Tonk 4. Mohemmad Mumtaz S/o Mohemmad Akeel,R/o Kumharon Ki Chhoki, Kalipaltan, Tonk (Driver Bus No. RJ-26-PA- 0443) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akshay Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Goyal (for appellant in CMA No. 6043/2016) Mr. Atul Kumar Jain [2026:RJ-JP:15914] (2 of 7) [CMA-5690/2016] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Judgment 16/04/2026 1. These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 25.07.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk (for short ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No. 300/2015, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants (respondents in CMA No. 6043/2016) was partly allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.02.2015, when Mohan Lal (since deceased) was going to Nehru Park near Sabilshah Chowki on his Activa scooter, a bus bearing registration No. RJ26-PA-0443, belonging to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘appellant-Corporation’), and being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the scooter. As a result of which, Mohan Lal sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died. 2.1 Thereafter, the claimants filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal, which was partly allowed, and a compensation of Rs. 8,14,170/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, was awarded in their favour. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, Appeal No.5960/2016 has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation, whereas Appeal No.6043/2016 has been preferred by the appellant- Corporation assailing the validity and legality of the impugned judgment and award. [2026:RJ-JP:15914] (3 of 7) [CMA-5690/2016] 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submits that the FIR was lodged on 02.03.2015, i.e., with a delay of eight days from the date of accident, which creates doubt regarding the occurrence of the accident. Learned counsel further submits that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself, as he was speaking on his mobile phone while riding the scooter and was not wearing a helmet, which amounted to a violation of traffic rules and thus was responsible for contributory negligence. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the impugned judgment and award be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-Corporation and supports the impugned award, particularly with regard to the finding of negligence on the part of the bus driver. 5.1 With regard to the appeal filed by the claimants, learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in determining the monthly income of the deceased on a notional basis at Rs.4916/-, whereas, at the relevant point of time, the minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker were Rs. 197/- per day. 5.2 Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to make any addition towards future prospects in the income of the deceased. 5.3 Learned counsel also submits that compensation under the conventional heads, namely loss of estate and loss of consortium, is required to be awarded in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC [2026:RJ-JP:15914] (4 of 7) [CMA-5690/2016] 680, and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and award. 7. This Court finds that Durgesh Kumar (AW-2), an eye-witness, stated before the learned Tribunal that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and hit the vehicle of the deceased. He further stated that he, along with other persons, took the deceased to the hospital. The said witness further stated that, considering the serious condition of the deceased, he was referred to Jaipur, where he remained under treatment for 7-8 days. 7.1 Similarly, another eye-witness, Rajesh Kumar (AW-3) also stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. This witness also stated that the deceased was wearing a helmet at the time of accident. 7.2 The appellant-Corporation failed to produce any eye-witness in rebuttal to prove the negligence of the deceased. Moreover, it is apparent that, after investigation, the police also filed the charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., the bus, under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC, finding the offence proved against him. 7.3 Based on the aforesaid evidence, the learned Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. [2026:RJ-JP:15914] (5 of 7) [CMA-5690/2016] 7.4 In so far as the contention regarding delay in lodging of the FIR is concerned, it is pertinent to note that, in the instant matter, the accident occurred on 23.02.2015, after which Mohan Lal was admitted to the hospital for treatment. Upon his demise on 02.03.2015, the FIR was lodged on the very same day, i.e., 02.03.2015. In these circumstances, it is obvious that from 23.02.2015 to 02.03.2015, the family members of the deceased were engaged in his treatment; therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that delay in lodging the FIR was not fatal to the case of the claimants. 7.5 In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is based on the factual matrix of the case and upon a proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. The same does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 7.6 As a result of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant-Corporation (CMA No. 6043/2016) is hereby dismissed. 8. Coming to the appeal filed by the claimants, the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased by taking the minimum wages at Rs. 189/- per day, whereas, undisputedly, the minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker, as notified by the State of Rajasthan for the relevant period of time, were Rs.197/- per day. Therefore, the compensation towards loss of dependency is required to be determined on the basis of minimum wages of Rs.197/- per day. 8.1 Further, this court is in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimants that the claimants [2026:RJ-JP:15914] (6 of 7) [CMA-5690/2016] are entitled to get compensation towards future prospects, loss of estate and loss of consortium, in view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram (supra). 8.2 Accordingly, the compensation payable to the claimants is re- computed as under:- S.No. Particular Amount assessed 1. Monthly Income Rs.197x30=5910 2. Annual Income Rs. 5910 x 12=Rs.70920/- 3. According to the age of the deceased i.e. 46 years, multiplier 13 to be applied Rs.70920 x 13 = Rs.921960/- 4. As per dependency, 1/3 income to be deduced for personal expenses of the deceased (-) Rs.921960 - Rs.307320 = Rs.614640/- 5. Add 25% towards future prospects (+) Rs.614640 + Rs.153660 = Rs.768300/- 6. Total loss of Dependency Rs.768300/- 7. Loss of consortium (three dependants) Rs.40,000 x 3 = Rs.1,20,000/- 8. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- 9. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- 10. Medical Expenses (as awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.183958/- 11. Transportation Expenses (as awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.4,000/- Total compensation (S.No. 6+7+8+9+10+11) Rs.11,06,258/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal (-) Rs.8,14,170/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 2,92,088/- 9. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced by a sum of Rs.2,92,088/-. The rest of the impugned award shall remain intact. The respondent-Corporation [2026:RJ-JP:15914] (7 of 7) [CMA-5690/2016] is directed to deposit the enhanced amount before the learned Tribunal within a period of two months from today. 10. It is directed that the enhanced amount shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded 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. 11. The present appeals are disposed of in the above terms. 12. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 13. Office is directed to send back the record of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J SKS/32-33