HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5791/2017

1. Nanagi Devi W/o Late Chhitar Mal, R/o Village Nandiwali Dhani Near Murgi Farm, Hathoj, Jaipur

2. Hanuman Sahai Jat S/o Late Chhitar Mal, R/o Village Nandiwali Dhani Near Murgi Farm, Hathoj, Jaipur

3. Ramprasad @ Ramprakash S/o Late Chhitar Mal, R/o Village Nandiwali Dhani Near Murgi Farm, Hathoj, Jaipur

4. Tarachand S/o Late Chhitar Mal, R/o Village Nandiwali Dhani Near Murgi Farm, Hathoj, Jaipur

5. Rakesh S/o Late Chhitar Mal, R/o Village Nandiwali Dhani Near Murgi Farm, Hathoj, Jaipur ----Appellants Versus

1. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shankar Lal, Vinobapuri, Bassi Naga, Thana Jobner Tehsil Lera Distt. Jaipur Driver

2. Banwari Lal Verma S/o Shankar Lal Verma, R/o A-137, Greenpark, Nirwaru Road, Govindpura Thana Kardhani, Jaipur Owner

3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, M.i. Road, Jaipur Insurance Company Of Vehicle ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Gupta JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

10/02/2026

1. By way of filing the instant appeal, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment and award dated 18.07.2017, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in MAC No. 221/2015, by which a compensation of Rs. 5,18,808/- has been granted in favour of the appellants-claimants (for short, ‘the claimants’).

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the instant appeal has been preferred seeking enhancement of the same.

3. Counsel for the claimants submits that the husband of the claimant No. 1 who was also the father of the claimant Nos. 2 to 5 met with an accident on 09.12.2014 when he was crossing the road and all of a sudden a car bearing No. RJ-01-CA-7299, being driven recklessly by the respondent No.1, struck him and caused an accident due to which he sustained multiple injuries and died. Counsel submits that on account of death of the deceased, a claim petition was submitted by the claimants before the Tribunal. Counsel submits that the Tribunal has treated the deceased as unskilled labour and determined his monthly income for 26 days in a month while the same should have been considered for 30 days in a month. Counsel further submits that the total number of dependents were five in number, hence the deduction of 1/4th was applicable but the Tribunal has applied the deduction of 1/3rd while determining the compensation awardable to the claimants. Counsel submits that even under the head of loss of consortium a meager amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded, hence the same needs to suitably enhanced to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- for each claimant in terms of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NIC Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680. Counsel submits that the age of the deceased was 60 years at the time of accident, hence the claimants are entitled to get an additional 10% under the head of loss of future prospects in light of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra).

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that the income of the deceased was assessed as per the notification issued by the Department of Labour, Government of Rajasthan for a period of 26 days in a month but as per the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Nandu Devi and Anr. Vs. Sohan Lal and Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 769/2019, decided on 23.02.2022), the monthly wages of the deceased should have been considered for

30 days in a month.

6. As per the proposition of law as propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), all the dependents of the deceased are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium bu