Asha Sharma W/O Shri Vishwanath Gautam Vs Surendra Singh S/O Balveer Singh

[2026:RJ-JP:13592]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2744/2024

Asha Sharma W/o Shri Vishwanath Gautam, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Quarter No. 995, Type -4, Nh-4, Nit Faridabad, Haryana.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Surendra Singh S/o Balveer Singh, R/o Ghanoda, Thana Kanini, District Mahendragarh, Haryana(Driver Bus No. Rj02Pa-4605)

¶8

Super Deluxe Universal Pvt. Ltd., First Address House No. 73, Village Mangalpur, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Second Address 27A, 403 Osiyan Bacchan Apartment, Kanti Chand Road, Banipark, Jaipur. Through Owner Vikas S/o Jagdish Aheer, R/o Gandala, Thana Neemkarana, Tehsil Bhiwadi, District Alwar.(At Present Registered Owner Bus No. Rj02-Pa-4605)

¶9

The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Address Unique Paradise, Opp. Nhi Office, Shahpura, District Jaipur(Insurance Company Vehicle Bus No. Rj02-Pa4605), Validity Date 8.12.2019 To 07.12.2020.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Ram Sharan Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Vimal Kumar Yadav &
	Mr.	Mihir Jangid for
	Mr.	Rishipal Agrawal

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order

¶13

01/04/2026

¶14

The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant-claimant (for short ‘claimant’) against the judgment and award dated 24.04.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura (Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Shahpura, Jaipur District Jaipur) in Claim Case No.86/2022, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant was partly allowed.

[2026:RJ-JP:13592]

[CMA-2744/2024]

(2 of 5)

The brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the claim petition, are that on 21.03.2020, the claimant along with her son and husband was coming from Gurgaon to Jaipur in a bus bearing registration No.RJ-02-PA-4605 and at about 06:00 PM, when bus reached Guti Puliya, the respondent No.1 drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed it into a truck. As a result of the said accident, the claimant sustained serious injuries.

¶19

The claimant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal, claiming a compensation of Rs.43,50,000/- under various heads.

¶20

The learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment and award partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total sum of Rs.7,15,181/- in favour of the claimant along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶21

Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 24.04.2024, the instant appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation so awarded.

¶22

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

¶23

i. The claimant is a well-educated lady holding educational qualifications of Master of Arts and B.Ed. and at the time of accident, she was earning a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month by imparting tuition, however, the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing a notional monthly income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/-.

¶24

ii. The learned Tribunal has failed to make any addition in the income of the claimant towards future prospects.

¶25

iii. Lastly, no compensation has been awarded under the head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

[2026:RJ-JP:13592]

[CMA-2744/2024]

(3 of 5)

6.1 The learned counsel for the claimant has not challenged the compensation so awarded by the learned Tribunal on any other ground.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the claimant and has submitted that the award is just and reasonable and requires no interference by this Court.

¶31

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

¶32

The first contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/-.

¶33

9.1 A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and the record of the case reveals that the claimant pleaded before the learned Tribunal that she possesses educational qualifications of Master of Arts and B.Ed. and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month by way of imparting tuition to the students at the time of accident. However, the claimant failed to produce any cogent evidence on record in support of her contention. In those circumstances, the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/- on notional basis by considering the claimant as a housewife.

¶34

9.2 Taking into consideration the fact that the claimant is a well educated lady possessing the educational qualifications of Master of Arts and B.Ed., in the considered opinion of this Court, even in the absence of any evidence of income, the monthly income of the claimant ought to have been assessed on the basis of minimum wages notified for a skilled worker at the relevant point of time.

[2026:RJ-JP:13592]

[CMA-2744/2024]

(4 of 5)

9.3 It is undisputed that the minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident were Rs.249/- per day, hence, the income of the claimant would be Rs.7,470/- per month.

¶39

With regard to second contention of the learned counsel for the claimant, this Court is of the view that considering the age of the claimant at the time of accident i.e. 42 years and having regards to the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , an addition @25% would be made in the monthly income of the claimant towards future prospects.

¶40

The last contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that no compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities. Looking to the fact that the claimant has attained serious injuries, this Court is also of the opinion that the claimant is also entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,00,000/under the head of pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities.

¶41

Thus, in view of the above discussion, the compensation payable to the claimant is reassessed as under:-

¶42

S.No.	Particular	Amount assessed
1.	Monthly Income	249 X 30 = Rs.7,470/-
2.	Annual Income	Rs. 7,470 X 12 = Rs.89,640/-
3.	According to the age of the claimant i.e.42 years, multiplier of 14 to be applied	Rs.89,640 /- X 14 = Rs.12,54,960/-
4.	Add 25% towards future prospects (+)	Rs.12,54,960 /- + Rs.3,13,740/- = Rs.15,68,700/-
5.	Loss of earning capacity (Disabilityof 46%)	Rs.15,68,700/- x 46% = Rs.7,21,602/-
6.	Hospitalization charges (for 14 days)	Rs.600 x 14 = Rs.8400

(5 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:13592]

[CMA-2744/2024]

7.	Operation Expenses (No. of operations - 2)	Rs.10,000 x 2 = Rs.20,000/-
8.	Medical Bills	Rs.2,90,081/-
9.	Transportation Charges	Rs.10,300/-
10.	Pain and Suffering	Rs.1,00,000/-
11.	Loss of Amenities	Rs.50,000/-
	Total amount of compensation (S.No. 5+6+7+8+9+10+11)	Rs.12,00,383/-
	Less amount awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.7,15,181/-
	Enhanced amount of compensation	Rs.4,85,202/-

¶47

Accordingly, the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.4,85,202/-. The rest of the impugned award shall remain intact. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from today.

¶48

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 till the recovery. The amount shall be disbursed in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶49

The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

¶50

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

¶51

Registry is directed to send back the record to the concerned

¶52

Tribunal forthwith.

¶53

(SANDEEP TANEJA),J

¶54

AVINASH GULERIA /32

Asha Sharma W/O Shri Vishwanath Gautam v. Surendra Singh S/O Balveer Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha Sharma W/O Shri Vishwanath Gautam v. Surendra Singh S/O Balveer Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basanti and Ors. Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Irsad S/O Alladeen Vs State of Rajasthan

Rashid S/O Ishra Vs State of Rajasthan

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