Smt. Kamli Devi Wife of Late Shri Brijmohan Vs Mahesh Kumar S/O Jhutharam Yadav

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:26409]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 11/2023

¶4

Smt. Kamli Devi Wife Of Late Shri Brijmohan, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Ghasipura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶5

Kumari Mamta D/o Late Shri Brijmohan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ghasipura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶6

Arvind S/o Late Shri Brijmohan, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ghasipura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

Dinesh (Minakshi) D/o Late Shri Brijmohan, Aged About 20 Years, (Vide Order Dated 19.12.2022) Correction Regarding Name Of Minakshi (Correct Name), R/o Ghasipura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

Dinesh S/o Late Shri Ghanshyam, Aged About 29 Years, (Deceaseds Brother) R/o Ghasipura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

Kumari Kiran D/o Late Shri Ghanshyam, Aged About 26 Years, (Deceaseds Sister) R/o Ghasipura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶10

Smt. Durga Devi Wife Of Late Shri Ghanshyam, Aged About 65 Years, (Deceaseds Mother), R/o Ghasipura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶11

----Appellants/Claimants

¶12

Versus

¶13

Mahesh Kumar S/o Jhutharam Yadav, R/o Dhani Bidalawali Tan Rajpura, Tehsil And Police Station Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. Driver Truck Trailer No. Rj52-Ga-2635.

¶14

Gyarsilal S/o Jhutharam Yadav, R/o Dhani Bidalawali Tan Rajpura, Tehsil And Police Station Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. Owner Truck Trailer No. Rj52-Ga-2635.

¶15

United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Regional Manager, Zonal Office, 20, Mohan House, Transport Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan. (Insurance Company).

¶16

----Respondents/Non-claimants

(2 of 8)

[2025:RJ-JP:26409]

[CMA-11/2023]

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Parashar

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶22

Judgment

¶23

15/07/2025

¶24

The present civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants/ claimants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) against the judgment and award dated 08.09.2022 passed by the Court of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shahpura (Addl. District & Sessions Judge, No.1, Shahpura, Jaipur District, Jaipur) [for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’] in Claim Petition No.197/2017, Smt. Kamlesh & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Kumar & Ors., whereby the Claims Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition awarded Rs.48,29,504/- as a compensation in favour of the appellants/ claimants.

¶25

The facts borne out from the pleadings are that the appellants/claimants filed a claim petition under section 166/140 of the Act of 1988 read with Rule 10(2) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (for short ‘the Rules of 1990’) before the Claims Tribunal mentioning therein that on 27.08.2017 at about 8-9 deceased Brijmohan was returning from Shahpura to his home at Ghashipura from motorcycle bearing number RJ-52-SB-7129, and as he reached near

(3 of 8)

[2025:RJ-JP:26409]

[CMA-11/2023]

Rajpura Culvert (Puliya) on National Highway No.8, one Trailer bearing number RJ-52-GA-2635 which was being run in front of the motorcycle by its driver, in a careless manner all of a sudden without giving any indicator or without any ignition applied the break and stopped the trailer on the center of the road as a result of which due to the darkness the motorcycle of Brijmohan hit from the trailer which resulted sustaining of grievous injuries by Brijmohan on his head and body. Brijmohan was taken to Shahpura Hospital but because of his serious condition he was referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur, where during the course of his treatment he died. It has also been mentioned in the claim petition that due to the mistake and carelessness of the driver of the trailer, the accident took place. The appellants/ claimants in lump sum claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,91,30,000/-.

¶30

It has also been submitted in the claim petition that regarding the said accident an FIR No.390/2017 was registered at Police Station Shahpura for the offences under sections 279 and 304A IPC. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet against Mahesh Kumar (driver of the Trailer) for the offences under sections 279 and 304A IPC. 3. The respondents/ non-claimants filed written statement of denial.

(4 of 8)

[2025:RJ-JP:26409]

[CMA-11/2023]

On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed five issues.

¶35

The appellants/ claimants to prove their case in oral evidence examined two witnesses and exhibited certain documents. The respondents/ non-claimants neither produced any oral nor any documentary evidence.

¶36

After hearing both the sides, the Claims Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award dated 08.09.2022. Hence, this civil misc. appeal.

¶37

Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma, counsel appearing for the appellants/ claimants submits that the Claims Tribunal has failed to consider the facts that the deceased at the time of accident was 42 years of age and he was a Government Servant as he was Postman in Postal Department and his monthly income was Rs.34,880/- but the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.28,080/-. Counsel has also raised an issue that the Claims Tribunal while assessing the income for computing the compensation under the head of loss of income has taken into consideration the salary /income of the deceased after making deduction of the house rent allowance of Rs.2,016/- .

¶38

Counsel submits that as per the settled law, the house rent allowance is a part of the salary/ income and the

(5 of 8)

[2025:RJ-JP:26409]

[CMA-11/2023]

same cannot be deducted while computing the compensation under the head of loss of income.

¶43

Mr. Manish Parashar, counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel appearing for the appellants/ claimants and supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal. Counsel fairly admits the legal position as regards the inclusion of house rent allowance in the head of salary for determining / computation of the compensation under the head of loss of income.

¶44

Considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 11. The Claims Tribunal in para 27 of its judgment and award has observed that as per the document Ex.14, the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.30,096/- per month including the house rent allowance of Rs.2,016/-. The Claims Tribunal for the purpose of computing the loss of income for determination of compensation has determined the salary of the deceased as Rs.28,080/- per month after deducting the house rent allowance of Rs.2,016/-.

¶45

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raghuvir Singh Matolya & Ors. vs. Hari Singh Malviya & Ors., reported in MACD 2009 (SC) 401 has observed as under:-

¶46

“ 7. We, therefore, are of the opinion that “dearness allowance” and “house rent allowance” payable to the

(6 of 8)

[2025:RJ-JP:26409]

[CMA-11/2023]

deceased should have been included for determining the income of the deceased and consequently the amount of compensation.

¶51

8. For the reasons aforementioned, we direct that in calculating the amount of compensation, the dearness allowance as also the house rent allowance should also be taken into consideration. The matter is remitted to the trial court. An award may be passed accordingly. ”

¶52

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Meenakshi vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2024(2) R.A.R. 347(SC) has observed as under:-

¶53

“10. Therefore, components of house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan and company contribution to provident fund have to be included in the salary of the deceased while applying the component of rise in income by future prospects to determine the dependency factor. The Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in factoring these components into the salary of the deceased, before applying 50% rise by future prospects due to future prospects, while calculating the total compensation payable to the appellant .”

¶54

In view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as quoted above, the deduction of the house rent allowance made by the Claims Tribunal for determining the salary of the deceased for computation of amount under the head of loss of income is illegal and arbitrary. The compensation amount to be computed without there being

[2025:RJ-JP:26409]

[CMA-11/2023]

(7 of 8)

deductions from the salary of the deceased. As per document Ex.14 the deceased was getting salary of Rs.30,096/- per month and therefore, the compensation under the head of loss of income is required to be calculated as per the salary given in Ex.14 i.e. Rs.30,096/- per month which is rounded off as Rs.30,100/- per month.

¶59

Accordingly, the compensation under the head of loss of income is computed as under:-

¶60

A. 30,100x12x14 = Rs. 50,56,800/-

¶61

Accordingly, this misc. appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 08.09.2022 passed by the Court of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shahpura (Addl. District & Sessions Judge, No.1, Shahpura, Jaipur District, Jaipur) [for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’] in Claim Petition No.197/2017, Smt. Kamlesh & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Kumar & Ors., is modified as under:-

¶62

A. The claimants are held entitled for the compensation under the head of loss of income as Rs.50,56,800/- and thus, the total compensation amount as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced by an additional amount of Rs.4,57,296/- (Rs.50,56,800 – 45,99,504).

¶63

B. The appellants shall be entitled for interest on this additional amount as per the terms of the award for the original compensation amount.

(8 of 8)

[2025:RJ-JP:26409]

[CMA-11/2023]

C. The Insurance Company shall make the payment of additional enhanced amount to the claimants within a period of eight weeks.

¶68