Partly allowed

Smt. Meena Devi W/O Late Ramshnehi v. Rahul Haldiya S/O Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma

Rajasthan HC12 May 2026CMA/3327/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants appealed enhancement of compensation for death of Ramshnehi in a road accident. Court assessed income at minimum wage of Rs.166/day, added 10% future prospects, applied multiplier 11, and granted consortium, funeral and estate amounts, enhancing award to Rs.8,12,256/- with interest at 8%.

What did the court decide?

Award enhanced from Rs.4,23,000 to Rs.8,12,256 with 8% interest on the enhanced amount from date of claim petition; earlier receipts adjusted.

Smt. Meena Devi W/O Late Ramshnehi Vs Rahul Haldiya… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:20715]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3327/2018

¶4

Smt. Meena Devi W/o Late Ramshnehi, Aged About 35 Years,

¶5

Sanjay Sharma S/o Late Ramshnehi, Aged About 22 Years, 3. Monu Sharma S/o Late Ramshnehi, Aged About 20 Years,

¶6

Ku. Poonam D/o Late Shri Ramshnehi, Aged About 17 Years,

¶7

Radhakishan S/o Badriprashad, Aged About 74 Years,

¶8

Smt. Navda Devi W/o Radhakishan, Aged About 70 Years, All R/o Village And Post Pakhar, Tehsil Mehwa Distt. Dausa

¶9

----Appellants/Claimants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Rahul Haldiya S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma, R/o Village Sajanpada Tehsil Kathumar Distt. Alwar

¶12

Mahesh Kumar S/o Motilal Sharma, R/o Village And Post Pakhar Tehsil Mehwa Distt. Dausa

¶13

National Insurance Company Ltd., Through Prabandhak, Office Poonam Takij Ke Samne Lalsot Road Dausa Distt. Dausa

¶14

----Respondents/Non-Claimants

¶15

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Baboo Lal Dhakar, Adv.
For Respondent No.3	: Mr.	Raaj Pal Chaudhary, Adv.
For State	: Mr.	Tanay Goyal, Adv. for
	Mr.	Rajendra Prasad, AG

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶17

Order

¶18

12/05/2026

¶19

Learned counsel Mr. Tanay Goyal, appearing for learned Adovate General Mr. Rajendra Prasad, representing the State Government, submits that the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.04.2026 passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 3/2026 (filed on behalf of the State Government in S.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 1592/2018 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal

(2 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:20715]

[CMA-3327/2018]

No.3327/2018), upheld the direction, with regard to condonation of delay issued by learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.02.2026 passed in the instant appeal; however, the directions issued to the State Government for creating a fund to provide law books to junior advocates were stayed. Copy of the order dated 23.04.2026 supplied by the learned counsel Mr. Tanay Goyal be taken on record.

¶24

By way of filing the instant civil misc. appeal, the appellantclaimants have challenged the impugned judgment and award dated 10.01.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as learned 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 263/2014 titled as Smt. Meena Devi & Ors. Vs. Rahul Haldiya & Ors., whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimants for claiming compensation due to the death of one-Ramshnehi, who succumbed to death due to injuries caused in a road accident, has been partly allowed and an award of Rs.4,23,000/- has been passed in favour of the appellant-claimants along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶25

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award dated 10.01.2017, the claimants have approached this Court by way of filing the instant civil misc. appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants submits that the deceased-Ramshnehi was of 49 years of age at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by selling the milk products. However, the learned Tribunal did not rely on the proof of income, issued by Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Limited, Pakhar

[2026:RJ-JP:20715]

[CMA-3327/2018]

(3 of 6)

(Exhibit-17), wherein, his monthly income has been mentioned in range of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the annual income of the deceased as Rs.36,000/-. Furthermore, no future prospects has been added to the income of the deceased and compensation in other heads has also been granted inadequately. Therefore, learned counsel prays that the appeal be allowed and the amount of compensation should be enhanced in accordance with law.

¶30

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3-Insurance Company opposes the prayer made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant-claimants and submits that, as no proof of age has been submitted on behalf of the appellant-claimants before the learned Tribunal, therefore, learned Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as 51 years, being mentioned in the post mortem report. Learned counsel further submits that the income certificate and other documents (Exhibit18 & 19) relating to the work of the deceased, has been issued by the father of the deceased himself, therefore, such certificate cannot be taken into account. Learned counsel contends that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation and there is no scope of any enhancement in the award, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶32

It has been mentioned in the claim petition that the monthly income earned by the deceased was Rs.15,000/- through selling milk products and working in Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti

[2026:RJ-JP:20715]

[CMA-3327/2018]

(4 of 6)

Limited, Pakhar. However, the income certificate (Exhibit-17) and other related work documents (Exhibit-18 & 19), have been issued by father of the deceased, who is President of the said Samiti. Therefore, due to lack of concrete evidence, this Court does not deems it fit to assess the income of the deceased on the basis of so called income certificate of the deceased (Exhibit-17).

¶37

Learned Tribunal has assessed the annual income of the deceased as Rs.36,000/-, which comes to approx Rs.100/- per day. It is a well settled law that if the claimants failed to prove the actual income of the deceased/injured, the income of the deceased is to be assessed on the basis of minimum wages, prevalent on the date of the accident. The date of accident in this case is 01.04.2013, for which the minimum wages for an unskilled labour has been provided as Rs.166/- per day, therefore, this Court deems it fit to assess the income of the deceased as Rs.166/- per day for calculating the loss of dependency. Hence, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.166/- x 30 = Rs.4,980/-.

¶38

In the absence of any cogent evidence and proof, learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the age of the deceased to be 51 years at the time of the accident, which is mentioned in the post mortem report, therefore, as per the mandate of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company

¶39

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , this Court deems it fit to add 10% of the assessed income of the deceased i.e. Rs.498/-, towards the future prospects, therefore, the total monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,980/- + Rs.498/- = Rs.5,478/-. This shall be taken into consideration for determining the loss of dependency.

[2026:RJ-JP:20715]

[CMA-3327/2018]

(5 of 6)

In the present matter, there are 6 claimants, who are wife, sons, daughter and parents of the deceased, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th of the amount from the assessed monthly income of the deceased. After deducting the amount of 1/4th of the assessed income, total income comes to Rs.5,478/- - Rs.1,370/- = Rs.4,108/-. Looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 51 years, multiplier of 11 has been rightly applied by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, applying the multiplier of 11, total loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,108/- x 12 x 11 = Rs.5,42,256/-. 11. As per the mandate given in the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant-claimant No. 1 is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'Spousal' consortium and appellant-claimant Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are entitled to get Rs.40,000/each, under the head of 'Parental' consortium and appellantclaimant Nos. 5 & 6 are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each under the head of 'filial' consortium. Therefore, total amount of consortium comes to Rs.40,000/- x 6 = Rs.2,40,000/-.

¶44

As per the mandate of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are also entitled to get Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate.

(6 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:20715]

[CMA-3327/2018]

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment and award is enhanced in the following

¶49

terms:-

¶50

S. No. Heads	Amount (in Rs.)
1. Loss of Future income	Rs. 5,42,256/-
2. Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- each to the claimants)	Rs. 2,40,000/-
3. Loss of Estate	Rs. 15,000/-
4. Funeral Expense	Rs. 15,000/-
The amount of compensation determined by this court	Rs. 8,12,256/-
The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal	Rs. 4,23,000/-
Difference in compensation amount after enhancement	Rs. 3,89,256/-

¶51

Accordingly, the instant civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant-claimants is partly allowed, and the award of Rs.4,23,000/- passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.8,12,256/- . Income tax will be deducted from this amount as per the rules. The compensation amount previously received by the appellant-claimants, if any, will be adjusted against the enhanced awarded amount, and the appellant-claimants shall be entitled to receive the remaining amount. The appellant-claimants are entitled to receive interest @ 8% per annum on the compensation amount enhanced by this order from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶52

Accordingly, the instant civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant-claimants is disposed of, in terms of the discussion made hereinabove.

¶53

Stay application(s), if any, and any other pending application(s) also stand disposed of.

¶54

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶55

Mohita /92

Smt. Meena Devi W/O Late Ramshnehi v. Rahul Haldiya S/O Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meena Devi W/O Late Ramshnehi v. Rahul Haldiya S/O Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deependra @ Vinay Gupta S/O Suresh Mohan Gupta Vs Shravan Kumar S/O Jhutharam Jat

Bali Wife of Chotulal, Vs Seetaram Lodha Son of Goverdhan

Aatish S/O Mohan Lal, Vs Devraj S/O Jagdish

Hemraj S/O Chhotulal, Vs Hariram Singh S/O Ratan Singh

Krishna Devi, Wife of Late Shri Siyaram Jat, Vs Vishram Jat, Son of Shri Ladu Ram Jat