Partly allowed

Savitri Devi v. Veer Singh and Others

Rajasthan HC2 Apr 2026CMA/1725/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim appeal by applying a 40% future prospects addition for a 35-year-old claimant and increased damages for pain and suffering, resulting in a total enhancement of Rs. 24,500/-. The appeal was partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation by Rs. 24,500/- for loss of earning capacity and pain & suffering.

Savitri Devi Vs Veer Singh and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:13975]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1725/2011

¶4

Savitri Devi W/o Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged 35 years, Resident of Mohalla Chavas ka Baag, Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Veer Singh S/o Vijay Singh, Aged 30 years, R/o Divali Thana Lakshmangarh, Distt. Alwar, Presently Constable No.1521, Police Line Alwar, Vehicle Driver Mini Bus No. UMR 9816.

¶8

Superintendent of Police, Alwar, Vehicle Owner No. UMR 9816.

¶9

State of Rajasthan through District Magistrate, Alwar, Distt. Alwar.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hari Krishna Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Munendra Singh Fauzdar for Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy.G.C.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order

¶13

02/04/2026

¶14

The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant (for short ‘claimant’) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 27.10.2010 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar (for short ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C. Case No.82/2006, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant, was partly allowed.

¶15

The brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the claim petition, are that on 04.05.2006, the claimant along with her minor son was travelling from Rajgarh to Alwar on a bus, bearing registration No.UMR 9816, belonging to the respondent – State. When the said bus reached near Kali Mori Itarna Phatak, the respondent No.1 i.e. bus driver, drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit a Maruti Car bearing registration No.RJ-02/5732. As a result of such accident, the bus overturned and the claimant along with her minor son sustained injuries.

[2026:RJ-JP:13975]

[CMA-1725/2011]

(2 of 4)

The claimant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.6,56,000/- under various heads.

¶20

The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment and award dated 27.10.2010, partly allowed the claim petition and compensation of total sum of Rs.45,800/- was awarded, in favour of the claimant, along with interest @ 6% per annum payable thereon from the date of filing the claim petition till its actual payment.

¶21

Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 27.10.2010, the present appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation so awarded.

¶22

Learned counsel for the claimant has made the following submissions:-

¶23

(i) While calculating the loss of earning capacity, the learned Tribunal has erred in omitting to make addition in the income of the claimant towards future prospects.

¶24

(ii) The learned Tribunal has granted a meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head of pain & suffering and no amount has been granted for attendant charges.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the claimant and submitted that the award is just & reasonable and requires no interference by this Court.

¶26

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused material available on record.

¶27

Having regard to the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , this Court is in agreement with

[2026:RJ-JP:13975]

[CMA-1725/2011]

(3 of 4)

the first contention made by learned counsel for the claimant. In view thereof, considering the age of the claimant at the time of accident i.e. 35 years, an addition @ 40% shall be made in the income of the claimant towards future prospects while calculating compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity.

¶32

9.1 Hence, the compensation for loss of earning capacity is recomputed as under:-

¶33

a) Compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal for loss of earning capacity - Rs.35,770/-

¶34

b) Addition towards future prospects (@ 40%) - Rs.35,770/- + 14,308/- = Rs.50,078/-

¶35

9.2 The compensation for loss of earning capacity is enhanced by Rs. 14,308/- (Rs.50,078 – Rs.35,770).

¶36

This Court also finds that only a sum of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal towards pain & suffering, whereas, admittedly the claimant remained hospitalized for a period of nine days’, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant an additional lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain & suffering as well as for attendant charges.

¶37

In view of the above discussion, the claimant is entitled to get the enhanced compensation as under:-

¶38

S.No.	Particular	Enhanced Compensation
1.	Loss of EarningCapacity	Rs.14,308/-
2.	Pain & Suffering and Attendant Charges	Rs.10,000/-
	Total Enhanced Compensation	Rs.24,308/- (Round off to Rs.24,500/-)

[2026:RJ-JP:13975]

[CMA-1725/2011]

(4 of 4)

Accordingly, the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.24,500/- . The rest of the impugned award shall remain intact. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of one month from today.

¶43

It is directed that the enhanced amount shall carry the rate of interest in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal, from the date of filing of the claim petition. The enhanced amount shall be disbursed in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶44

The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

¶45

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶46

Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶47

(SANDEEP TANEJA),J

¶48

SAHIL SONI /10

Savitri Devi v. Veer Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitri Devi v. Veer Singh and Others

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

Shri Surendra Singh Vs Shri Ladu Singh and Ors.

Savitri Devi and Anr. Vs Lakshmi Devi and Ors.

I C I C I Lombard Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Savitri Devi and Others

Jagdish Mani and Anr. Vs Bhanwar Lal Jat and Ors.

Dev Dutt Vs Veer Singh and Others

Smt. Mem Bano W/O Guljar Ahmad, Vs the New India Insurance Company Limited