[2026:RJ-JP:12224] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 124/2008 1. Smt Vimla Devi wife of late Oma Ram @ Om Prakash, aged 30 years, 2. Mukesh 3. Master Sanju 4. Kumari Neti @ Rinku 5. Master Deepa Ram 6. Master Kushal All sons of deceased Oma Ram @ Om Prakash, all minors, hence represented through their natural guardian mother Vimla Devi, wife of Oma Ram, @ Om Prakash 7. Shankar Ram S/o Deena Ram, aged about 73 years, 8. Smt. Balu Devi wife of Shankar Ram, aged about 70 years All residents of House No.81, Vivek Vihar, Karni Nagar, 200 ft. By Pass, Jaipur. ---Claimants-Appellant Versus 1. Jagdish S/o Ganpat Singh, r/o Kalwadi, Tehsil and District Mahendragarh, haryana (Owner of Tractor No.HR 34-8823) 2. Madanlal Yadav, S/o Mohari Lal Yadav, r/o A-70 Krishna Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur (Regd. Owner of Tractor No.HR 34-8823) 3. National Insurance Company Ltd. jaipur (Insurance Company of Tractor No.HR-34 8823) ---Non-Claimants-Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tanmay Dhand For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain Ms. Manisha Yogi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Judgment 24/03/2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants (hereinafter referred to as ‘claimants’) under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated [2026:RJ-JP:12224] (2 of 5) [CMA-124/2008] 11.01.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No. 585/2006 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 04.07.2004, Oma Ram @ Om Prakash was going from Khatipura to Chungi Naka via Queens Road, Jaipur on his auto-rickshaw, bearing Registration No. RJ14-1-P-2925 and in the said auto-rickshaw, two passengers namely, Rajendra Bhati and Kuldeep Singh were sitting. When he reached near Chungi Naka, a Tractor, bearing Registration No. HR-34-8823, driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from the wrong side, due to which auto-rickshaw overturned and the tractor-trolley loaded with sand toppled onto the auto-rickshaw, as a result of which, Rajendra Bhati died on the spot, while Kuldeep Singh and Oma Ram sustained injuries. Later on, Oma Ram also died, as a result of the injuries sustained. 3. Thereafter, the claimants preferred a claim petition before the learned Tribunal for compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- which was partly allowed and a sum of Rs.4,43,000/- was awarded along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award, this appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation so awarded. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants made the following submissions: - [2026:RJ-JP:12224] (3 of 5) [CMA-124/2008] i. While calculating the total loss of income, the learned Tribunal has erred by not making any addition towards future prospects in the income of the deceased. ii. The learned Tribunal has made deduction of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, however, considering that the deceased had eight dependants, deduction of 1/5th should be made. iii. The learned Tribunal has awarded a lump-sum amount of Rs.30,000/- under the head of love and affection whereas the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to each of the claimants, should be awarded under the head of loss of consortium. iv. The claimants are further entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate. v. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded under the head of funeral expenses, however, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the said head. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference by this Court. The learned counsel, however, further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 17, as after considering the age of deceased i.e., 34 years, multiplier of 16 should have been applied. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma [2026:RJ-JP:12224] (4 of 5) [CMA-124/2008] General Insurance Company Vs. Nanuram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal deserves to be enhanced as under: - i. As the deceased was 34 years old at the time of accident, therefore, while calculating the total loss of income, addition @40% will be made in the income of the deceased towards future prospects. ii. Undisputedly, at the time of accident, the deceased has eight dependants, therefore, while calculating the total loss of income, deduction of 1/5th of the income of the deceased will be made towards his personal expenses. iii. Each of the claimants is entitled to get compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. iv. Under the head of loss of estate, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/-. v. The compensation towards funeral expenses will be Rs.15,000/-, instead of Rs.5,000/-. 9. Moreover, this Court also finds substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the learned Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 17. Since, at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 34 years, therefore, multiplier of 16 will be applicable. 10. As a result of the above discussion, the claimants are entitled to get compensation as per the table hereinunder:- S.No. Particular Amount assessed 1. Monthly Income Rs.3,000/- 2. Annual Income Rs.3000 x 12 = Rs.36,000/- [2026:RJ-JP:12224] (5 of 5) [CMA-124/2008] 3. According to the age of the deceased i.e. 34 years, multiplier 16 to be applied Rs.36000/- x 16 = Rs.5,76,000/- 4. Add 40% towards future prospects (+) Rs.5,76,000/- + Rs.2,30,400/- =Rs.8,06,400/- 5. As per dependency, 1/5 income to be deduced for personal expenses of the deceased (-) Rs.8,06,400/- - Rs.1,61,280/-. =Rs.6,45,120/- 6. Loss of consortium (eight claimants) Rs.40,000 x 8 = Rs.3,20,000/- 7. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 8. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation Rs.9,95,120/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal (-) Rs.4,43,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.5,52,120 /- 11. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.5,52,120/-. 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. 12. It is directed that the enhanced amount shall carry the interest in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal and the enhanced amount shall be disbursed in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 13. The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 14. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 15. Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J TN/17