1. Motor accident death — Claim for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 585
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
SANDEEP TANEJA, J.
Ganga Devi, Wife Of Late Shri Ramvilas – Appellant
Versus
Raghvendra, Son Of Shri Bheekam Singh – Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4348 of 2025
Decided On : 06-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg
For the Respondent: Mr. Rizwan Ahmed with Mr. Mohsin.
For the Appellant : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg
For the Respondent: Mr. Rizwan Ahmed with Mr. Mohsin.
Monthly income for daily wagers in motor accident claims must be calculated based on 30 days per month. Additionally, conventional damages—including loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate—are entitled to a 10% increment every three years.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Quantum of compensation - Monthly income of a daily wager - It is a settled position of law that the monthly income of a daily wager is to be assessed for 30 days instead of 26 days in a month. (Paras 6.1, 6.2)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act - Loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses - Each dependent is entitled to get compensation for the loss of consortium. Further, compensation under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses is to be increased by 10% after every three years. (Paras 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4)
Facts of the case:
This is an appeal against a judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in a claim petition arising from a fatal motorcycle accident. The Tribunal had partly allowed the petition, awarding compensation of Rs. 13,42,780/- with interest. The appellants sought enhancement of this amount on the grounds that the monthly income of the deceased was calculated based on 26 days instead of 30 days in a month, and that compensation for consortium was only awarded to the parents without the necessary 10% increment across conventional heads.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the monthly income of the deceased, being a daily wager, ought to have been calculated based on 30 days a month, increasing the monthly income from Rs. 6,734/- to Rs. 7,770/-. It further found that all six dependents are entitled to loss of consortium and that the compensation for consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate must be increased by 10%.
Issues: The main issues were whether the monthly income of a daily wager should be calculated using a 26-day or 30-day month and whether the recipients and quantum of compensation for consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses were correctly determined by the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that for the purpose of determining compensation, the monthly income of a daily wager must be assessed for 30 days in a month. Additionally, following Supreme Court precedents, compensation for loss of consortium must be awarded to each dependent, and the amounts for consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses must be increased by 10% every three years.
Result: Award dated 16.04.2025, passed by learned Tribunal in MAC No. 30/2024, is modified and the appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over calculation of monthly income by 26 vs 30 days and heads of compensation. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Monthly income of daily wager must be calculated for 30 days; consortium, estate, funeral expenses entitled with 10% increment. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Appeal allowed — Compensation enhanced and modified. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
5. How should monthly income of a deceased daily wager be calculated for compensation?
Monthly income must be calculated for 30 days per month, not 26 days, following settled law. (Para 6 )
6. Are all dependants entitled to separate compensation for loss of consortium?
Yes, each dependant is entitled to Rs. 40,000 for loss of consortium, with 10% increment every three years. (Para 7 )
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP TANEJA, J.
1. The claimants - appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellants’) have preferred the present appeal against the judgment and award dated 16.04.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur (Rajasthan) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in MAC No. 30/2024 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants has been partly allowed and a sum of Rs. 13,42,780/- has been awarded alongwith interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the appellant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.10.2022, Ramvilas @ Banti was coming from Murena to Dholpur on his motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-11 SJ 5869 and when he reached near Sanda Village, suddenly another motorcycle, bearing registration No. RJ-11 SP 9264 driven in rash and negligent manner, came from opposite side and collided with his motorcycle, as a result of which, he got injured and succumbed to death.
2.1 The appellants preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation on account of death of deceased Ramvilas @ Banti, who was husband of appellant No. 1, father of appellants No. 2 to 4 and son of appellants No. 5 and 6, for a sum of Rs. 51,70,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a.
2.2 The learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 13,42,780/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was serving with one Shiv Traders Marena and was earning monthly income of Rs. 15,000/-. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal while calculating the minimum wages applicable at the relevant time for unskilled labour, calculated the monthly income of deceased by taking 26 days in a month and as such the learned Tribunal committed an error, as the monthly income ought to have been calculated by taking 30 days in a month. In support of this contention, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court:
1. Jalaur Singh and Ors. Vs. Barkat and Ors. , S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 6562/2011, decided on 26.03.2012.
2. Nandu Devi and Ors. Vs. Sonhanlal and Ors. , S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 769/2017, decided on 23.02.2022.
3.1 He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has also erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on account of loss of consortium only to the parents of the deceased whereas the said amount ought to have been awarded to each of the appellants with an increment of 10%.
3.2 He also contended that the learned Tribunal also ought to have granted the compensation under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses with an increment of 10%.
3.3 Therefore, the learned counsel sought enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the appellants has rightly calculated the amount of compensation, therefore, no interference is warranted in the said award.
5. Heard and perused the material available on record.
6. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is regarding calculation of monthly income of the deceased. From a perusal of the material available on record and the impugned award, it is revealed that the appellants, in their claim petition, claimed that the monthly income of deceased was Rs. 15000/-, however, no documentary evidence to prove the said income was produced by them. In the said circumstances, on the basis of the minimum wages, for an unskilled person, applicable at the relevant point of time, the learned Tribunal determined Rs. 6734/- as his monthly income. However, while calculating the same, calculation was made for 26 days instead of taking 30 days in a month.
6.1 Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the fact that the monthly income of the deceased has been determined, by the learned Tribunal, for 26 days i
