[2025:RJ-JD:36014]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2208/2011

1. Mohan Lal s/o Balu Ram Teli, aged about 83 years, 2. Mangi bai w/o Mohan Lal Teli, aged 75 years, 3. Alol Bai w/o Late Shri madan Lal Ji, aged 45 years, 4. Miss Durga d/o Late Shri Madan Lal Ji, aged 29 years, 5. RajKumar s/o Late Shri Madan Lal Ji, aged 23 years, 6. Vimla d/o Late Shri Madan Lal Ji, aged 21 years, All r/o Biliyakhurd Poice Thana Pratap Nagar, Biliwara, District Bhilwara.

----Appellant Versus

1. Karamveer Singh s/o Ramkaran Dahiya r/o House No.M-01, Old DLF Sector No.14 Gurgaon (Haryana).

(Owner Maruti Car No.HR-99-HY-HQT-839).

2. Jagveer Singh s/o Ramkumar Dahiya r/o House No.M-01, Old DLF Sector No.14 Gurgaon (Haryana).

(Driver maruti Car No.HR-99-HY-HQT-839).

3. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Through Manager, H-

10, 1^st Floor, Netaji Subhash Palace, Delhi.

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Darshan Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Singhal for the Insurance Company.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

12/08/2025

1. The instant misc. appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the validity of judgment/award dated 12.05.2011 passed by the learned Judge, MACT, District Bhilwara, in MAC Case No.79/2008, whereby claim petition of the claimants was partly allowed and they were awarded an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.9,75,000/-

in total with the interest @ 6% p.a.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants, Narayan son of Madanlal, submitted a written report to the Officer-in-Charge, Baneda, stating that on 17.01.2008, his father Madanlal and Madanlal's friend Udayram Gadri were traveling from Baneda to Rayla on motorcycle number RJ 06 SE 4275 to attend a pre- wedding ceremony. On the way, a Maruti car bearing registration number HR 99 AY 0839, being driven at high speed, negligently and carelessly, collided head-on with their motorcycle. As a result, Udayram died on the spot, and Madanlal, though taken to the hospital in an injured condition, also succumbed to his injuries. Based on the report, a case was registered, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused Jagveer Singh and others before the competent court.

3. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of the claimants and vide judgment/award dated 12.05.2011 awarded quantum of compensation to the tune of Rs.9,75,000/- with the interest @6% p.a. and being dissatisfied of the award, the claimants have preferred the claim petition.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bhilwara, is manifestly inadequate and unjust. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 12, which is inconsistent with the age of the deceased, who was 45 years old at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the Tribunal failed to consider the deceased's future prospects, which should have been accounted for to reflect the potential for increased earnings. The amounts awarded for consortium is Rs.30,000/- and funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- are disproportionately low and do not adequately compensate for the emotional and social impact of the loss. He also submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd amount from the Personal Expenses, which ought to have been 1/4th as the dependents of the deceased are six in numbers including his wife, three children and father and mother of the deceased as per the guidelines laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. :

(2017)16 SCC 680

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company, vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the appellants counsel and urges that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and does not warrants any interference.

6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar and have go