Partly allowed

Gaurishankar S/O Shri Kamalkishore v. Hansraj S/O Shri Sukh Lal Jat

Rajasthan HC19 Sept 2025CMA/2397/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against MACT award in a fatal road accident caused by a low-floor bus. The tribunal awarded consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses only to one claimant without escalation. The court applied the three-yearly 10% escalation on conventional heads and enhanced compensation by Rs. 54,700 for claimant No. 2 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of Rs. 54,700 to appellant No. 2 over the tribunal award, plus 7% annual interest from date of filing to deposit; remaining terms of award upheld.

Gaurishankar S/O Shri Kamalkishore Vs Hansraj S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:38828]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2397/2023

¶4

Gaurishankar S/o Shri Kamalkishore, Aged About 30 Years, (Adopted Son Of Deceased)

¶5

Kamalkishore S/o Late Shri Vishveshvar Prasad, Aged About 58 Years, (Brother Of Deceased). All R/o Village Jabra Phatak Ghatla Colony, Distt. Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh Presently R/o Luniyapura, Near Govt. Primary School, Abu Road, Thana Abu Road, Distt. Sirohi Rajasthan.

¶6

----Claimants-Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Hansraj S/o Shri Sukh Lal Jat, R/o Gram Naai Ki, Thana Kekdi, Distt. Ajmer. Presently-Driver, Sanganer Depot, Jaipur (Driver Low Floor Bus No. RJ 14-PB-3773)

¶9

Jaipur City Transport Services Limited, Through Manager Director, R.K. Vyas Bhawan, Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Owner Of Low Floor Bus No. RJ -14-PB-3773)

¶10

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Chief Manager, Chomu House, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur. (Owner Of Low Floor Bus No. RJ -14-PB-3773)

¶11

Govt. Of Rajasthan, State Insurance And Provident Fund Department General Insurance Fund, Vitt Bhawan, D- Block, 2nd Floor, Janpath, Jaipur No. 2740292. Policy No. 1082, Validity Date- 28.03.2011 To 27.03.2012 Low Floor Bus No. RJ -14-PB-3773.

¶12

----Non Claimants-Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, Adv.

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI

¶15

(2 of 5) [CMA-2397/2023]

[2025:RJ-JP:38828]

Order

19/09/2025

vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls ;g vihy fo}ku U;k;k/kh'k] vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e ,oa eksVj nq?kZVuk nkok vf/kdj.k] t;iqj egkuxj f}rh; }kjk Dyse ;kfpdk la[;k 412@2014 ¼231@2012½ esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o vokMZ fnukad 28-06-2023 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh x;h gS] ftlds ek/;e ls fo}ku vf/kdj.k us vihykFkhZx.k dks dqy 2]84]100@& :i;s izfrdj jkf'k rFkk mDr jkf'k ij ;kfpdk izLrqr djus dh fnukad 09-01-2012 ls olwyh rd 6 izfr'kr lk/kkj.k okf"kZd C;kt dh nj ls C;kt fnyok;k gSA

¶20

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

¶21

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; vihykFkhZ la[;k 2 dks gh erd ij vkfJr ekuk gS] blds ckotwn mls izse] Lusg o okRlY; ds en esa dksbZ jkf'k ugha fnyok;h gS] tcfd fof/kd izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i 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 of) fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶22

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

[CMA-2397/2023]

[2025:RJ-JP:38828]

(3 of 5)

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

¶27

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

¶28

orZeku izdj.k esa fnukad 07-12-2011 dks uoyfd'kksj iSny vtesjh xsV dh rjQ vk jgk Fkk] rHkh lka;dky 4-15 cts ,d yks&¶yksj cl uacj RJ 14 PB 3773 ds pkyd us rst xfr o ykijokgh ls cl pykdj uoyfd'kksj ds VDdj ekjh nh] ftlls nq?kZVuk esa vk;h pksVksa ds dkj.k mldh 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 vihykFkhZ la[;k 1 dks erd ij vkfJr ugha ekuk gS rFkk dsoy vihykFkhZ la[;k 2 dks gh e`rd ij vkfJr gksuk ekuk gSA

¶29

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%&

¶30

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

[CMA-2397/2023]

[2025:RJ-JP:38828]

(4 of 5)

bl izdkj 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

¶35

,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 vihykFkhZ la[;k 2] 48]400@& :i;s] 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 84]700@& :i;s izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa] tcfd vf/kdj.k us mDr enksa

[CMA-2397/2023]

[2025:RJ-JP:38828]

(5 of 5)

esa dsoy 30]000@& :i;s gh fnyk;s x;s gSaA vr% mDr enksa esa dqy 54]700@& :i;s c<+ksrjh ;ksX; gSaA

¶40

bl izdkj fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk tks izfrdj jkf'k fnyk;h x;h gS] mlesa c<+ksrjh djrs gq, vihykFkhZ la[;k 2@nkosnkjku dqy 54]700@& :i;s vfrfjDr :i ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA

¶41

mijksDr foospukuqlkj ;g vihy vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dj fo}ku U;k;k/kh'k] vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e ,oa eksVj nq?kZVuk nkok vf/kdj.k] t;iqj egkuxj f}rh; }kjk Dyse ;kfpdk la[;k 412@2014 ¼231@2012½ esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o vokMZ fnukad 28-06-2023 dks mikUrfjr djrs gq, vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk tks izfrdj jkf'k vihykFkhZ la[;k 2 dks fnyok;h x;h gS] mlds vfrfjDr vihykFkhZ la[;k 2] 54]700@& :i;s izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxk rFkk vihykFkhZ la[;k 2 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 dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA vihyk/khu vkns'k dh 'ks"k 'krsaZ ;Fkkor jgsaxhA

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

MANISH SAINI /88

¶45

(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J

Gaurishankar S/O Shri Kamalkishore v. Hansraj S/O Shri Sukh Lal Jat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurishankar S/O Shri Kamalkishore v. Hansraj S/O Shri Sukh Lal Jat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mamta W/O Late Shri Satveer Vs Daljeet Singh S/O Buasingh

Smt. Lali Devi W/O Late Shri Prakash Vs Nandkishor Bairwa S/O Shri Harchand Bairwa

U O I Vs M/S Sethi Construction Co.

Meethalal S/O Shri Ramgopal Vs Rajendra Prasad S/O Shri Prabhudayal

Sanwarmal and Anr. Vs Shankarlal and Ors.

Revad Mal S/O Shri Mohan Lal Vs Union of India