IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 24501/2025)

SAYAR & ORS. … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS RAMKARAN & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 25^th April 2025, passed in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4976/2009 by the High Court of Judicature for Signature Not Verified NAVEEN D Date: 2025.11.24 Reason:

the order dated 9^th June 2009 in MACT Claim Petition No.185 of 2007(643/2006) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Ajmer.

3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 27^th June 2006, the deceased, namely, Rajendra Singh Gena, aged 32 years, along with his brothers, was travelling from Jaipur to Ajmer, and suddenly Respondent No. 2 who was driving his truck negligently (Offending vehicle) bearing registration no.RJ- 14-1G-9787, dashed into the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the spot.

4. In connection with this incident, FIR No.1006/2006 was registered at PS. Gegal, District Ajmer, under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle.

5. A claim petition was filed on behalf of the claimant- appellant(s) (the legal representatives of the deceased) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.68,94,000/-, claiming that the deceased earned Rs. 84,000/- per annum in the financial year 2004-05 and Rs.1,26,000/- per annum in the financial year 2005-06, through his transport business and agricultural works.

6. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 9^th June 2009, awarded an amount of Rs.9,74,000/- to the claimant-appellant(s) along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, determined the income of the deceased to be Rs.84,000/- per annum. A deduction of 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased was made towards living expenses, and a multiplier of 17 was applied. The Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant-appellant(s).

7. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant-appellant(s) filed an appeal before the High Court seeking an enhancement of the compensation amount. It was urged that the Tribunal erred in not considering the income of the deceased as Rs.1,26,000/- per annum and that the Tribunal also failed to consider that the deceased used to earn a further sum of Rs.60,000/- per annum from agriculture. It was also averred that no amount has been granted under the heads of loss of estate and future prospects.

8. The High Court, vide the impugned judgement, partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.16,01,200/- from Rs.9,74,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhancement was granted under the heads of future prospects, loss of consortium, loss of estate and other conventional heads. The High Court deducted 1/4^th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, keeping in view the number of dependents and the settled principles laid down in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680

9. Yet, dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the claimant-appellant(s) are now before us. The significant contention is that the Courts below erred in computing the annual income of the deceased at Rs.84,000/-, instead of Rs.1,26,000/-. Further, the High Court failed to grant a 10% increase towards conventional heads, which in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra)