Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 11970
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MS. REKHA BORANA, J
Smt. Imrati Devi – Appellant
Versus
Nattha Ram – Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3011/2018 | MAC Case No. 149/2014 (N.C.V. No. 1922/14)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S.K. Sankhla
For the Respondents: Mr. Sunil A Vyas
The assessment of compensation must accurately reflect a decedent's true earning capacity, particularly when evidence of financial obligations exists.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act; 1988 - Section 166 - Enhancement of compensation due to inadequate assessment - The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7,88,692/- for wrongful death caused by negligent driving of vehicle, which appellants challenged as insufficient, asserting higher income from mining operations. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Legal Principle - The assessment of compensation must reflect true earning capacity, and evidence of financial commitments demands a corresponding acknowledgment of income exceeding minimum wage standards. (Paras 12, 18)
(C) Court held that documentary evidence related to loan payments and mining activities underscores higher income, modifying monthly earning to Rs.45,000/- to compute just compensation. (Paras 18)
(D) Issues raised include the adequacy of income assessment versus reliance on minimum wage standards. (Para 6) (E) Ratio Decidendi - The inability to demonstrate exact income does not undermine compensability; operational acknowledgment is critical. The court emphasized higher compensation based on loan payments as a significant indicator of economic reality. (Paras 12, 13, 18) (F)
Result: The appeal is partly allowed, enhancing total compensation to Rs.68,51,328/-, with orders for deposit and timely disbursement. (Paras 21, 22)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimants seek enhancement of compensation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. claimants argue regarding the deceased's earnings and consortium compensation. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court evaluates evidence to ascertain deceased's income. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. case law supports higher income claim based on loan servicing. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. agricultural income equated with skilled labor income. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. total income must reflect multiple income streams of deceased. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. judgment results in enhanced compensation award. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
Judgment
Reportable
23/09/2025
1. The present misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide Judgment and Award dated 23.07.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal First, Jodhpur (for brevity ‘learned Tribunal’) in MAC Case No. 149/2014 (N.C.V. No. 1922/14).
2. The learned Tribunal quantified the compensation at Rs.7,88,692/- in favour of the claimants, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The appellants, being dissatisfied with the quantum so determined, have approached this Court.
3. Brief facts as pleaded in the claim petition are that on 09.01.2014, one Dhalaram was travelling from Balesar towards his native village on his motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-19-SP- 4130. At about 1:00 P.M., near Shaheed Bhanwar Singh Choraha, a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-34-UA-0794, driven in a rash and negligent manner, rammed into the motorcycle from behind. Dhalaram sustained grievous injuries and despite best efforts, succumbed to the injuries. FIR No. 5/2014 came to be registered at Police Station, Balesar. The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was duly insured with respondent No. 4 Insurance Company.
4. The appellants-claimants are the dependents of deceased Dhalaram. The learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record, and after hearing counsels for the parties, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.4,914/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,88,692/- (including interim compensation of Rs.50,000) in favour of the appellants-claimants, the breakup of which is as under:
| 1. | Income per month (after addition of future prospects (25%) and deduction for personal and living expenses (1/4th) in the monthly income of Rs.4,914/-) | Rs.4,607/- |
| 2. | Loss of Income (as per the age of the deceased i.e. 49 years, a multiplier of 13) | = R 4,607 x 12 x 13 s.7,18,692/- |
| 3. | Under the head of ‘Consortium’ | Rs.40,000/- |
| 4. | Under the head of ‘Funeral Expenses’ | Rs.15,000/- |
| 5. | Under the head of ‘Loss of Estate | Rs.15,000/- |
| 6. | Total amount of compensation | Rs.7,88,692/- |
5. Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 19.06.2014.
6. The appellants–claimants have assailed the impugned award primarily on two grounds:
(i) That the learned Tribunal erred in treating the deceased to be an unskilled labour drawing Rs.4,914/- per month, whereas material on record unmistakably disclosed that the deceased was engaged in mining operations, held requisite statutory consents, owned heavy machinery such as a crane and tractor, was paying Rs.35,170/- per month as EMI towards crane loan, and was also engaged in agricultural activities yielding not less than Rs.10,000/- per month. It is thus contended that his monthly earnings were not less than Rs.1,10,000/- and certainly not less than Rs.50,000/-.
(ii) That the learned Tribunal committed a significant error in its adjudication by providing insufficient compensation qua the conventional head of ‘Consortium’.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent– Insurance Company, while supporting the impugned award in so far as it pertained to the computation of income of the deceased, contended that there was no cogent documentary evidence, such as income-tax returns or other reliable financial records, avail
