HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 77/2026 In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1458/2023 Arif Khan S/o Hussain Khan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Jatoli, P.S. Malakhera, Distt. Alwar, Raj. ----Appellant/Claimant Versus 1. Aslam Khan S/o Bulle Khan, R/o Plot No. G-325, Bhim Nagar Rajbhatta, P.S-N.E.B. Alwar-Rajasthan. (Driver Of Vehicle Motorcycle No. RJ-02-XS-5767). 2. Naseer Khan W/o Mammal Khan, R/o Tuleda P.S. Sadar Tehsil And District- Alwar, Rajasthan. (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Motorcycle No. RJ-02-XS-5767). 3. Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Co. Ltd., 15Th Floor, Tower- A Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrav Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Through Manager, (Insurer Of Vehicle Motorcycle No. RJ-02-XS-5767). ----Respondents/Non-Claimants For Applicant- Insurance Company : Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha, Adv. For Appellant/Claimant : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Saini, Adv. for Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 27/03/2026 1. The matter comes upon an Application No. 77/2026 filed by respondent/non-claimant-TATA A.I.G. General Insurance Co. Ltd. seeking modification/correction of order dated 29.01.2026 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1458/2023 titled as Arif Khan Vs. Aslam Khan & Ors. (2 of 3) [CMAP-77/2026] 2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company submits that in this matter, the age of the injured was 28 years and 11 months on the date of accident, therefore, as per the settled principle laid down in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier of 17 was to be adopted, whereas, inadvertently multiplier of 18 has been used in this matter. Therefore, learned counsel prays that the necessary correction be made in the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by this Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. Admittedly, the age of the appellant-claimant on the date of the accident was 28 years and 11 months, therefore, as per the law laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), multiplier of 17 was to be adopted, however, in the above mentioned judgment multiplier of 18 has wrongly been used. Therefore, this application needs to be allowed. 5. Accordingly, the present application No. 77/2026 is allowed and the judgment dated 29.01.2026 is modified only to the extent of use of multiplier. Therefore, after applying the multiplier of 17 in place of 18, the amount of loss of future income of the appellant-claimant will be calculated as Rs.3,918/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.7,99,272/-. 6. After applying the multiplier of 17, the amount of loss of future income has been changed, therefore, the table mentioned (3 of 3) [CMAP-77/2026] in Para 20 of the impugned judgment is also to be corrected. The table mentioned shall be corrected as below:- Øe la[;k 'kh"kZ@en bl fu.kZ; ds rgr fu/kkZfjr dh x;h jkf’k ¼:i;s esa½ 1- Hkfo"; esa gksus okyh vk; vtZu dh {kerk esa deh ds en esa 7]99]272@& 2- 'kkjhfjd o ekufld ihM+k dh en esa 45]000@& 3- Hkfo"; esa gksus okyh lq[k&lqfo/kkvksa dh deh ds en esa 45]000@& 4- ikSf"Vd vkgkj dh en esa 15]000@& 5- ;krk;kr o ifjogu ij O;; jkf'k ds en esa 10]000@& 6- bykt ds nkSjku O;; gqbZ jkf'k ds en esa 1]39]425@& 7- 04 fnol vLirky esa HkrhZ jgus dh en esa 2]400@& 8- byktjr vof/k ds nkSjku gqbZ 03 ekg vk; dh gkfu ds en esa 19]170@& bl U;k;ky; }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ {kfriwfrZ jkf'k 10]75]267@& fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk fnyokbZ xbZ {kfriwfrZ jkf'k ¼&½ 4]06]351@& c<+ksrjh i'pkr {kfriwfrZ jkf'k esa varj 6]68]916@& 7. This order shall be made part of the judgment dated 29.01.2026 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1458/2023. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J Mohita /41