[2026:RJ-JD:2063]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 2/2024

1. Shri Rajan S/o Ramsahay Indani Maheswari, Aged About

40 Years, R/o Charana Tehsil Railmagra Distt. Rajsamand

2. Tripti D/o Ramsahay Indani Maheswari, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Charana Tehsil Railmagra Distt. Rajsamand

3. Yogita D/o Ramsahay Indani Maheswari, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Charana Tehsil Railmagra Distt. Rajsamand ----Petitioners Versus

1. Shri Prahalad Singh S/o Mularam Jat, R/o Bhakri Tehsil Korputli Distt. Jaipur

2. The United India Insurance Company Ltd, Bapu Bazar Udaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Ajmera For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mudit Bachhawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

14/01/2026

1. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioners to review certain findings in the judgment dated 18.11.2023. By the said judgment and decree, the appeal filed by the present petitioner was allowed with certain enhancement of the compensation.

2. While dealing with the deductions towards personal expenses in para 14, this Court noticed that the dependents were five. As per the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, the appropriate deduction was 1/4 where the dependents are five. However, instead of 1/4, this Court ordered a deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses, which is an apparent error;

therefore, the review application is allowed

3. As a necessary consequence, in para 14, it shall be ordered to deduct 1/4 towards personal expenses instead of 1/3 and accordingly, the calculations should be made and a revised judgment and decree issued.

4. Operative portion of the order dated 18.11.2023 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2002 shall now be read as:

“14. In the present case, the number of dependents are 5. The Tribunal has deducted 50% i.e. 1/2 of the annual income towards personal expenses, which is incorrect. The appropriate deduction should have been 1/4. After the deduction towards personal expenses, the re-computed annual income comes to Rs.86,090/- [Rs.1,14,787 (total annual income) – Rs.28,697/- (personal expenses)=

Rs.86,090/-].

15. The age of the deceased was 50 years. The appropriate multiplier for the age group of 46 to 50 is 13. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 13, which is correct. Accordingly, the loss of annual earnings arrived at is Rs.86090 X 13= Rs.11,19,170/-. 16. In the present case, the Tribunal has granted Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses which should be Rs. 15,000/- and accordingly, Rs.15,000/- is granted towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal has granted Rs.15,000/- in all towards loss of love & affection, consortium and loss of guardianship. No loss of estates has been granted by the Tribunal. The present claimants are three children of the deceased. They are entitled for the compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and the consortium for each of the claimant shall be Rs.40,000/- (total compensation towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- X 3= Rs.1,20,000/-). The amount granted under the head of love and affection shall be adjusted towards the above compensation. Thus, the rec-computed amount of compensation works out as under:-

Loss of dependency Rs.11,19,170/-.

Added: Loss of Consortium Rs.1,20,000/-

Added: Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Added: Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-

----------------

Total compensation Rs.12,69,170/-

17. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,88,444/- to Rs.12,69,170/-. The enhanced compensation shall be paid with interest 7.5% per annum. The respondents are liable to pay compensation and the enhanced amount shall be deposited with interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.”

5. It is further clarified that interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid as ordered from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

6. This order may be treated