Meethalal S/O Shri Ramgopal Vs Rajendra Prasad S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2025)

Meethalal S/O Shri Ramgopal Vs Rajendra Prasad S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed: award dated 27-03-2024 affirmed but compensation enhanced by Rs. 1,59,180/- payable to the appellants, carrying simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till deposit; remaining terms of the impugned award maintained.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 5,850/- on the basis of 26 days' wages at the notified daily minimum wage of Rs. 225/- for an unskilled worker, when per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it should have been computed on the basis of 30 days' wages. +3 more

Court's answer

Per the procedure laid down in Laxmidhar Nayak (2018 (1) SCC 746) and Laxmi Devi (2008 (12) SCC 165), compensation must be computed on 30 days' wage rates; hence the deceased's monthly income is correctly determined at Rs. 6,750/- (Rs. 225/- per day x 30) rather than the Tribunal's Rs. 5,850/- (26-day basis).

Ratio / Principle

Since the deceased was unmarried, deduction of 1/2 of the income towards his personal expenses is justifiable, as per the determination in National Insurance Co. Vs Pranay Sethi ((2017) 16 SCC 680); after deduction the monthly income works out to Rs. 3,375/-.

Key takeaways

The Tribunal's adoption of multiplier 18 for a deceased aged 17 years is a correct application.ratio¶¶32
Even though the appellants failed to prove the deceased had permanent employment with regular salary, he being a student, he is entitled to the benefit of future increase in income at 40% on the basis of his becoming self-employed in future.ratio¶¶32
Loss of income recomputed: 3375 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 7,29,000/-, plus 40% future prospects of Rs. 2,91,600/-, totalling Rs. 10,20,600/-, against which the Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,84,520/-; hence enhancement of Rs. 1,36,080/- is due under the head of loss of income.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accidents — enhancement of compensation — Death of 17-year-old unemployed student in collision with Roadways Bus No. RJ 03 PA 3312 (accident 03-10-2019); MACT Lalsot (Claim Case 14/2020) awarded Rs. 9,94,520/- with 6% interest by award dated 27-03-2024. Held: monthly notional income must be computed on 30 days' minimum-wage basis (Rs. 225 x 30 = Rs. 6,750), not the Tribunal's 26-day basis (Rs. 5,850), per Laxmidhar Nayak (2018 (1) SCC 746) and Laxmi Devi (2008 (12) SCC 165); multiplier 18 for age 17 upheld; 40% future prospects allowed despite unemployment (student presumed self-employed); 1/2 deducted towards personal expenses as deceased was unmarried, per Pranay Sethi ((2017) 16 SCC 680). Conventional heads recalculated with 10% escalation per three years from 31-10-2017 per Pranay Sethi, Sadhana Tomar (C.A. 3763/2025, dt. 24-01-2025), Kavita Devi (2025 INSC 938) and Magma General Insurance (2018 (18) SCC 130): consortium Rs. 48,400 each (Rs. 96,800), loss of estate Rs. 18,150, loss of care Rs. 18,150 (total Rs. 1,33,100). Result: enhancement of Rs. 1,36,080/- (loss of income) and Rs. 23,100/- (conventional heads) — total additional compensation Rs. 1,59,180/- with 7% p.a. simple interest from filing (21-01-2020) to deposit; remainder of award upheld; appeal partly allowed.

[2025:RJ-JP:38826]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2321/2024

Meethalal S/o Shri Ramgopal, Aged About 44 Years.

Smt. Kamli Devi W/o Meethalal, Aged About 38 Years. Both resident of Byad Walo Ki Dhani, Matlana, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa

----Claimants/Appellants

Versus

Rajendra Prasad S/o Shri Prabhudayal, R/o 10, Hasanpura, Jaipur (Driver Of Roadways Bus No. RJ-03PA-3312)

Managing Director Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Parivahan Marg, Near Ajmer Puliya C- Scheme, Jaipur (Owner Of Roadways Bus No. RJ-03-PA3312)

	----Non-Claimants/Respondents
For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Kamal Kumar Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sagar Jindal, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI

Order

19/09/2025

vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls ;g vihy fo}ku eksVj okgu nq?kZVuk nkok vf/kdj.k] ykylksV] ftyk nkSlk }kjk Dyse ;kfpdk la[;k 14@2020 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o vokMZ fnukad 27-03-2024 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh x;h gS] ftlds ek/;e ls fo}ku vf/kdj.k us vihykFkhZx.k dks dqy 9]94]520@& :i;s izfrdj jkf'k rFkk mDr jkf'k ij ;kfpdk izLrqr djus dh fnukad

[CMA-2321/2024]

[2025:RJ-JP:38826]

(2 of 6)

21-01-2020 ls olwyh rd 6 izfr'kr lk/kkj.k okf"kZd C;kt dh nj ls C;kt fnyok;k gSA

chek daiuh rFkk okgu Lokeh@pkyd dh vksj ls dksbZ vihy izLrqr ugha dh x;h gSA

vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk cgl ds nkSjku ;g lhfer rdZ jgk gS fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k us erd dh lM+d nq?kZVuk esa eR;q gksus ij izfrdj jkf'k dh x.kuk djrs le; mls vdq'ky deZdkj ekudj 225@& :i;s nSfud vk; ds vk/kkj ij 26 fnol dh etnwjh ds fglkc ls 5]850@& :i;s ekfld vk; fu/kkZfjr dh gS] tcfd ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fl)akrksa ds vuqlkj ekfld vk; dh x.kuk 30 fnol dh etnwjh ds vk/kkj ij dh tkuh pkfg, FkhA blds vfrfjDr fo}ku vf/kdj.k us izse] Lusg o okRlY; ds en esa dsoy 80]000@& :i;s gh fnyok;s gSa] tcfd fof/kd izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i izR;sd vihykFkhZ dks 48]400@& :i;s dalksfVZ;e dh gkfu ds en esa fnyok;s tkus pkfg, FksA blh izdkj vafre laLdkj o lEink dh gkfu ds enksa esa Hkh fo}ku vf/kdj.k us de izfrdj jkf'k fnyok;h gSA vr% izfrdj jkf'k esa fof/k vuqlkj o`f) fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

izR;FkhZ&chek daiuh ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk cgl ds nkSjku rdZ jgk gS fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k us fof/kd izko/kkuksa ds rgr vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ds lexz fo'ys"k.k ds mijkar lgh :i ls vkyksP; fu.kZ; o vokMZ ikfjr fd;k gS] ftlesa gLr{ksi fd;s tkus dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha gS] vr% vihykFkhZx.k dh vihy [kkfjt dh tkosA

eSaus mHk; i{k ds rdksZa ij euu fd;k rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA

[CMA-2321/2024]

[2025:RJ-JP:38826]

(3 of 6)

orZeku izdj.k esa fnukad 03-10-2019 dks fny[kq'k psrjke ds lkFk eksVjlkbfdy uacj RJ 29 SX 1266 ls ykylksV tk jgk FkkA ykylksV dksFkwu jksM+ ij xzke vtciqjk esa xqY;k ehuk dh FkM+h ds ikl jksM+ost cl uacj RJ 03 PA 3312 ds pkyd us cl dks rst xfr o ykijokgh ls pykdj mudh eksVjlkbfdy ds VDdj ekj nh] ftlls nq?kZVuk esa vk;h pksVksa ds dkj.k fny[kq'k dh eR;q gks x;hA rRi'pkr vihykFkhZx.k }kjk fo}ku vf/kdj.k ds le{k Dyse ;kfpdk izLrqr dh x;hA fo}ku vf/kdj.k us vius vkyksP; fu.kZ; esa nq?kZVuk dh fnukad dks erd dh vk;q 17 o"kZ gksuk rFkk mls vdq'ky Jfed gksuk vo/kkfjr fd;k gS] ftlesa nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; dksbZ fookn ugha gSA

fo}ku vf/kdj.k us erd dh vk; gkfu dh x.kuk djrs le; mls vdq'ky Jfed gksuk ekudj mldh vk; 5]850@& :i;s ekfld fu/kkZfjr dj fof/kd Hkwy o =qfV dh gSA nq?kZVuk fnukad 03-10-2019 dks jkT; ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk ds vuqlkj vdq'ky Jfed dh U;wure etnwjh nj 225@& :i;s izfrfnu fu;r FkhA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n"VkUr Laxmidhar Nayak & Ors. Vs. Jugal Kishore Behera & Ors. 2018 (1) SCC 746 rFkk Laxmi Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohammad Tabbar & Anr. 2008 (12) SCC 165 esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj 30 fnu ds ikfjJfed njksa ds vuqlkj izfrdj dh x.kuk gksuk vko';d gSA bl izdkj e`rd dh 225@& :i;s izfrfnu ds vk/kkj ij ekfld vk; 6]750@& :i;s vo/kkfjr gksrh gSA

nq?kZVuk ds le; e`rd vfookfgr Fkk rFkk ml ij mlds ekrk&firk vkfJr Fks] ,slh fLFkfr esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fofu'p; National Insurance Co. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC

[CMA-2321/2024]

[2025:RJ-JP:38826]

(4 of 6)

680 ds vuqlkj mlds O;fDrxr [kpZ ds :i esa 1@2 Hkkx dh dVkSrh fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA mDr dVkSrh fd;s tkus ds i'pkr erd dh ekfld vk; 3]375@& :i;s 'ks"k jgrh gSA erd vk;q 17 o"kZ gksus ls fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk 18 dk xq.kd iz;ksx esa fy;k x;k gS] tks lgh iz;ksx esa fy;k x;k gSA erd dh LFkk;h izdfr dh ukSdjh gks vkSj og fu;fer osru izkIr djrk gks] bls vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls lkfcr ugha fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa erd ds Lofu;ksftr gksus ds vk/kkj ij mls Hkfo"; esa vk; of) dk ykHk 40 izfr'kr dh nj ls fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA

rn~uqlkj vk; gkfu dh x.kuk dh tkos rks ;g jkf'k 3375x12x18=7,29,000@& :i;s laxf.kr gksrh gS rFkk blesa 40 izfr'kr Hkfo"; esa vk; o`f) dk ykHk 2]91]600@& :i;s tksM+s tkus ij ;g jkf'k 10]20]600@& :i;s gksrh gS] tcfd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk bl en esa 8]84]520@& :i;s fnyk;s gSaA vr% vk; gkfu ds en esa 1]36]080@& :i;s c<+ksrjh ;ksX; gSaA

tgka rd ijEijkxr 'kh"kZd esa izfrdj jkf'k dk iz'u gS] National Insurance Co. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 fofu'p; esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%&

"54. ........................ It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are 41 disposed to hold so

[CMA-2321/2024]

[2025:RJ-JP:38826]

(5 of 6)

because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads."

mDr fofu'p; ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 31-10-2017 dks ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA mlds i'pkr Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3763/2025 fofu'p; esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 24-01-2025 dks iz.k; lsBh ¼iwoksZDr½ ds fu.kZ; ds vuq:i fu.kZ; ikfjr dj nq?kZVuk ds i'pkr dalksfVZ;e dh gkfu] lEink dh gkfu o vafre laLdkj ds enksa esa izR;sd rhu o"kZ i'pkr 10 izfr'kr dh of) dh x;h gSA blh izdkj dk er ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Kavita Devi & Others Vs. Sunil Kumar & Another 2025 INSC 938 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; esa O;Dr fd;k gSA mDr fu.kZ; ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors., 2018 (18) SCC 130 esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fl)akrksa ds vuq:i fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa dalksfVZ;e] izse&Lusg dks foLrr :i ls foosfpr djrs gq, eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e dks ykHknk;d o dY;k.kdkjh fof/k gksuk crkrs gq, mfpr izfrdj fu/kkZj.k ds laca/k esa er O;Dr fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa bl izdj.k esa Hkh dalksfVZ;e dh gkfu] lEink dh gkfu o vafre laLdkj ds enksa esa iz.k; lsBh ¼iwoksZDr½ ds fu.kZ; fnukad 31-10-2017 ds vuq:i izR;sd rhu o"kZ esa 10 izfr'kr dh o`f) dk ykHk fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA

,sls esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fl)karksa ds vuqlkj dalksfVZ;e gkfu ds en esa vihykFkhZx.k] izR;sd 48]400@& :i;s vFkkZr~ dqy 96]800@& :i;s rFkk vafre laLdkj ds en esa 18]150@& :i;s rFkk lEink dh gkfu ds en esa Hkh 18]150@& :i;s vFkkZr mDr enksa esa dqy 1]33]100@& :i;s izkIr djus

[CMA-2321/2024]

[2025:RJ-JP:38826]

(6 of 6)

ds vf/kdkjh gSa] tcfd vf/kdj.k us mDr enksa esa dsoy 1]10]000@& :i;s gh fnyk;s x;s gSaA vr% mDr enksa esa dqy 23]100@& :i;s c<+ksrjh ;ksX; gSaA

bl izdkj fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk tks izfrdj jkf'k fnyk;h x;h gS] mlesa c<+ksrjh djrs gq, vihykFkhZx.k@nkosnkjku dqy 1]59]180@& :i;s vfrfjDr :i ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA

mijksDr foospukuqlkj ;g vihy vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dj fo}ku eksVj okgu nq?kZVuk nkok vf/kdj.k] ykylksV] ftyk nkSlk }kjk Dyse ;kfpdk la[;k 14@2020 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o vokMZ fnukad 27-03-2024 dks mikUrfjr djrs gq, vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk tks izfrdj jkf'k vihykFkhZx.k dks fnyok;h x;h gS] mlds vfrfjDr vihykFkhZx.k 1]59]180@& :i;s izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxs rFkk vihykFkhZx.k mDr c<+h gqbZ jkf'k ij fo}ku vf/kdj.k ds le{k ;kfpdk izLrqr djus dh fnukad ls olwyh dh fnukad rd 07 izfr'kr okf"kZd lk/kkj.k C;kt nj ls C;kt Hkh izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA vihyk/khu vkns'k dh 'ks"k 'krsaZ ;Fkkor jgsaxhA

layXu izkFkZuk i=] ;fn dksbZ gksa] mDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;s tkrs gSaA

fo}ku vf/kdj.k dk vfHkys[k ;fn bl U;k;ky; dks izkIr gks j[kk gS] rks bl vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk ykSVk;k tkosA

(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J

MANISH SAINI /16

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 5,850/- on the basis of 26 days' wages at the notified daily minimum wage of Rs. 225/- for an unskilled worker, when per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it should have been computed on the basis of 30 days' wages.¶¶20
The court held
Per the procedure laid down in Laxmidhar Nayak (2018 (1) SCC 746) and Laxmi Devi (2008 (12) SCC 165), compensation must be computed on 30 days' wage rates; hence the deceased's monthly income is correctly determined at Rs. 6,750/- (Rs. 225/- per day x 30) rather than the Tribunal's Rs. 5,850/- (26-day basis).ratio¶¶27
2.
Whether the amounts awarded under the conventional heads — loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral/final rites expenses — were inadequate and required enhancement as per the legal provisions.¶¶20
The court held
Following Pranay Sethi (dated 31-10-2017) and its application in Sadhana Tomar (Civil Appeal No. 3763/2025, decided 24-01-2025) and Kavita Devi (2025 INSC 938), in line with the principles in Magma General Insurance (2018 (18) SCC 130), the conventional heads carry 10% escalation every three years from 31-10-2017: the appellants are entitled to Rs. 48,400/- each towards loss of consortium (total Rs. 96,800/-), Rs. 18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 18,150/- towards loss of care — total Rs. 1,33,100/-, against Rs. 1,10,000/- awarded; hence enhancement of Rs. 23,100/- is due under these heads.ratio¶¶41
3.
Whether, despite absence of proof that the deceased had a permanent job and drew regular salary (he was an unemployed 17-year-old), the appellants were entitled to the benefit of future increase in income at 40%.¶¶32
The court held
Even though the appellants failed to prove the deceased had permanent employment with regular salary, he being a student, he is entitled to the benefit of future increase in income at 40% on the basis of his becoming self-employed in future.ratio¶¶32
4.
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required lawful enhancement and at what rate of interest the enhanced amount should carry.¶¶20
The court held
Adding the enhancements, the appellants are entitled to total additional compensation of Rs. 1,59,180/- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal.ratio¶¶47