[2026:RJ-JD:7214]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1084/2014 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Near Alok Cinema, Churu through its Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Residency Road, Jodhpur ----Appellant Versus

1. Snehlata w/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar, aged 40 years, 2. Rahul s/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar, aged 21 years, 3. Bharat s/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar, aged 19 years, All resident of Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu

4. Ayub Khan s/o Shri Samandar Khan, R/o Norangsar, P.S.

Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu

5. Mali Ram Sharma s/o Shri Gopi Ram Sharma, Resident of Vatenairy Hospital, Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Kaushik For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Ojha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Judgment

10/02/2026

1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant – United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against the Judgment and Award dated 20.03.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sujangarh, District Churu in Claim Petition No. 21/2012 (Snehlata & Ors. vs. Ayub Khan & Ors.), whereby the tribunal allowed the claim petition and granted compensation of ₹28,18,222/- with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the respondent No. 1-claimant, fastening joint and several liability upon the appellant-non-claimant and other respondents-non-claimants.

2. The facts in short are that the claimants, being the widow and sons of deceased Ashok Kumar, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking ₹51,39,422/- as compensation on account of Ashok Kumar’s death in a motor accident dated 19.08.2011. It was stated that deceased, aged about 40 years, was running a tea shop and earning ₹15,000/- per month. He was allegedly hit by a motorcycle driven rashly and negligently by non-claimant No.1. After prolonged treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 11.10.2011. The motorcycle was owned by non-claimant No.2 and insured with non-claimant No.3 (Insurance Company). The medical expenses of ₹6,19,222/- were also claimed.

The claim petition was contested by the appellant-Insurance company as well as respondents-non-claimants, the owner and driver, who denied the income and alleged exaggeration of facts but admitted insurance coverage. The Insurance Company disputed the income, involvement of the vehicle, medical expenses and validity of the driving licence and alleged delayed FIR and collusion.

The tribunal after framing issues and adducing evidence, allowed the claim petition qua respondent No. 1-non-claimant while holding that respondent Nos. 2 and 3-claimants being adult were not dependent upon deceased and awarded a total sum of ₹28,18,222/- with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the respondent No.1-claimant, fastening joint and several liability upon the appellant-non-claimant and other respondents-non- claimants. Hence, this claim petition was filed by the appellant –

Insurance company.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, restricting his arguments to quantum, contends that the tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s monthly income at ₹15,000/- without any documentary evidence or income tax returns, despite the claim that he ran a small tea shop, making the assessment excessive.

It is further argued that the Tribunal wrongly deducted only

1/3rd of the income for personal expenses of the deceased, treating the major sons as dependents, whereas, only the wife was dependent, and a 50% deduction should have been applied.

Learned counsel submits that under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, negligence and actual pecuniary loss must be proved. There is no evidence that the tea shop ceased operations after the deceased’s death, yet the Tribunal mechanically assessed income loss. The Tribunal relied solely on inconsistent oral testimony as A.W.3 – Heeralal stated he received ₹3,500/- per month from the deceased, while the dece