Pokhar Lal and Ors. Vs Shri Hari Prakash and Ors.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:10553]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3794/2007

¶4

Pokhar Lal S/o Shri Fena Ram ji Bhati, aged about 37 years. 2. Smt. Orem Devi W/o Shri Pokhar Lal Bhati, aged about 31 years.

¶5

R/o New Colony, Post Bar, P.S. Raipur, Distt. Pali (Raj.) At present Residing at West Nehru Nagar, Gali No. 1, House No 149, P.S. Beawar City, Thesil Beawar Distt Ajmer (Raj.)

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shri Hari Prakash S/o Shri Datiya Ram, R/o Chang Gate, Beawer Nagar Parishad, Beawer(Driver of the tractor No. RJ-01R-3763)

¶9

Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Beawer (owner of the tractor No. RJ-01-R-3763)

¶10

Director General, Insurance Fund (G.I.F) Jaipur (Insurance Company of the tractor No. RJ-01-R-3763)

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Appellant(s)	:	Mr. Yashovardhan Agarwal with
		Mr. J.P. Gupta
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Abhishek Paliwal on behalf of
		Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi
		Mr. S. Gaharana on behalf of
		Mr. G.K. Sharma

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

¶14

Judgment

¶15

1.	Date of conclusion of Arguments	12.03.2026
2.	Date on which thejudgment was reserved	12.03.2026
3.	Whether the full judgment or only operative part ispronounced	Full
4.	Date ofpronouncement	14.05.2026

¶16

1. This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred

[2026:RJ-JP:10553]

[CMA-3794/2007]

(2 of 10)

to as ‘ the Act of 1988 ’) to challenge the award dated 20.09.2006 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and Additional District Judge, Fast Track No.2, Beawar (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the learned Tribunal ’) in Claim Petition No.897/2005 titled as ‘Pokhar Lal and Anr. Vs. Hari Prakash and Ors .’ , whereby the claim petition of the appellants-claimants was partly allowed and an award of Rs.1,62,000/- was passed. The appellants, the family members of the deceased-Sunil (hereinafter referred to as ‘ deceased ’) herein, has filed the appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal.

¶21

2. The brief facts are that on 10.06.2005 deceased and Hitesh were proceeding on foot while he was carrying grass on a bicycle, when suddenly a tractor bearing No. RJ-01-R-3763, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, struck both of them. As a result thereof, both of them sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. At the time of accident, deceased was 16 years old and was working in a provisional store and was earning about Rs.2000/- per month.

¶22

3. The appellants-claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.15,82,000/- for the loss suffered by them due to the death of deceased. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and therefore, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,62,000/along-with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization.

[2026:RJ-JP:10553]

[CMA-3794/2007]

(3 of 10)

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal framed five issues and partly allowed the claim petition by its award dated 20.09.2006.

¶27

5. Learned counsel, Mr. Yashovardhan Agarwal, submitted that the learned Tribunal, while deciding the Claim in respect of the deceased, wrongly applied a multiplier of 15, whereas, considering the age of the deceased which was 16 years, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied a multiplier of 18, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Anr. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

¶28

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal also committed a serious error while calculating the minimum wages of the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased was 16 years of age and was working in a provisional store as a helper and that the learned Tribunal wrongly assessed his annual income as Rs.15,000/- (Rs.1,250/- per month), whereas, in terms of the settled law, the minimum income to be assessed in the case of a skilled worker, being a helper to a shopkeeper in the present case, is Rs. 2,106/- per month. In support of minimum income, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶29

Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari &

¶30

Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 1070. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

¶31

“10. Adverting to the facts at hand, the appellant was an 8- year-old child at the time of the accident. In view of the above exposition of law, we must advert to the prevailing minimum wages,

(4 of 10)

[2026:RJ-JP:10553]

[CMA-3794/2007]

which for the skilled ones, as in the year of accident, i.e., 2012, in Gujarat would be Rs.227.85p. per day, therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to determine the income of the appellant as Rs.6,835.5p. per month, rounding off to Rs.6,836/- per month.”

¶36

7. Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Tagaram & Ors. Vs. Hanumanram & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1876/2022) and other connected appeals decided on 17.12.2025, wherein the judgment of Hitesh (supra) was considered and the minimum income was taken as Rs. 227/- per day and the monthly income was calculated accordingly. Relevant para of the judgment is quoted hereunder:-

¶37

“7. ,slh fLFkfr esa ge] Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra) ds ekeys esa ikfjr er ls lger gksrs gq, bl ekeys esa Hkh e`r ckyd dks oDr ?kVuk dq'ky Jfed gksuk ekurs gq, ?kVuk dh frfFk 18-04-2017 dks izpfyr U;wure etnwjh nj ds vk/kkj ij mldh nSfud vk; 227@&

¶38

#i;s] rn~uqlkj ekfld vk; 227 x 30 = 6]810@& #i;s fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk mfpr le>rs gSaA vf/kdj.k }kjk erd dh vk; ij Hkfo"; esa gksus okyh vk; dh en esa dksbZ Hkfo";&of) ugha dh x;h gSA fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk oDr ?kVuk er ckyd dh vk;q 14 o"kZ fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa us'kuy ba';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM cuke iz.k; lsBh o vU; fjiksVsZM bu¼2017½ 16 ,l-lh-lh- 680 esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds vuqlkj erd dh vk;q dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, mldh fu/kkZfjr ekfld vk; 6]810@& #i;s esa 40 izfr'kr vFkkZr 2]724@& #i;s dh c<+ksrjh fd;k tkuk visf{kr gSA mDr 40izfr'kr jkf'k dks fu/kkZfjr ekfld vk; esa tksM+s tkus ds mijkar vihykFkhZ dh dqy 'kq) ekfld vk; 9]534@& #i;s gksrh

¶39

gS] tks {kfriwfrZ fu/kkZj.k dk vk/kkj jgsxhA ”

¶40

8. Learned counsel submitted that in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that, in case where the deceased was self-employed, an addition of 40% to the established income, should be awarded where the deceased was

[2026:RJ-JP:10553]

[CMA-3794/2007]

(5 of 10)

below 40 years of age. Learned counsel further pointed out that in the present case, the income should be assessed at Rs.2,106 /- per month, treating the deceased as a skilled labourer, with an addition of 40% to the established income in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra) . The relevant para of Pranay Sethi (supra) is reproduced as under:-

¶45

“59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.”

¶46

9. It is further argued that the learned Tribunal has not properly examined and considered the important aspect of loss of consortium and awarded only a sum of Rs.25,000/-, whereas the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) , has held that each claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/towards loss of consortium .

¶47

10. Learned counsel further contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court again in the case of Magma General Insurance Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, reported in 2018(18) SCC 130, in Para 24, while considering judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) held that every claimant is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of consortium for fixed amount of Rs.40,000/-. The relevant para of the judgment passed in the case of Magma General Insurance (supra) is reproduced here under:-

(6 of 10)

[2026:RJ-JP:10553]

[CMA-3794/2007]

“The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.”

¶52

11. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions and judgments as cited, learned counsel for the appellants prayed that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal vide its award dated 20.09.2006 deserves to be suitably enhanced by allowing the present appeal.

¶53

12. In reply to the above submission, Learned Counsel for the respondent No.3, Mr. Abhishek Paliwal, vehemently opposed argument of the appellants-claimants and submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly awarded a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- in Claim Case No.897/2005, wherein deceased aged 16 years died in an unfortunate accident.

¶54

13. Counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that though the deceased was a helper of shopkeeper, however, there is no proof of his income or any other evidence to show that he was earning Rs.1,250/- per month. He further submitted that, on the basis of the subsequent judgments, as cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, the compensation cannot be enhanced. Lastly he submitted that the present appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed by this Court.

¶55

14. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

[2026:RJ-JP:10553]

[CMA-3794/2007]

(7 of 10)

15. For the issue of assessing the correct income, in terms of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra) , this Court noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment assessed the per day income for the skilled/unskilled worker on the basis of the minimum wages applicable in the concerned state i.e., State of Gujarat in that case, during the relevant period. However, in the present case, in the State of Rajasthan, the applicable minimum wages for the skilled labourer was Rs. 2,106/- per month at the relevant time. Deceased is treated as a skilled labourer, working as a helper to the shopkeeper, at the time of incident, therefore, his annual income is to be calculated as Rs. 25,272/ @ Rs. 2,106/per month.

¶60

16. The next issue pertains to addition of 40% to the established income towards the future prospects in the case where the deceased is below the age of 40 years in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) .

¶61

17. In view of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) , an addition of 40% towards future prospect shall be made, as the deceased was below 40 years of age. Accordingly, the annual income of Rs. 25,272/- is enhanced to Rs. 35,376/-. Further, since the deceased was unmarried, 50% of the said income is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma &

¶62

Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The relevant para of the judgment passed in Sarla Verma (supra) is quoted hereunder:-

(8 of 10)

[2026:RJ-JP:10553]

[CMA-3794/2007]

"15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger nonearning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third."

¶67

18. For the issue of multiplier, considering that the deceased was aged 16 years at the time of accident, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 15. This Court has considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) , according to which the appropriate multiplier would be of 18. Accordingly, it is held that the multiplier of 18 would be applicable in the present case.

(9 of 10)

[2026:RJ-JP:10553]

[CMA-3794/2007]

19. The next issue is with regard to compensation under the head of loss of consortium. In the case of Magma General Insurance (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), each of the claimant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are held entitled to Rs 40,000/- each.

¶72

20. On the basis of the above discussion, this Court noted that in the present appeal the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal to be enhanced as under:-

¶73

(I) The income of the deceased shall be treated as Rs.25,272/- by treating him as a skilled labourer, taking minimum wages of skilled worker as Rs. 2,106/- per month in terms of Hitesh Nagjibhai (supra)

¶74

(II) In terms of the judgment passed in Pranay Sethi (supra) , an addition of 40% to the establised income as assessed is to be made as the deceased was below 40 years. (III) The learned Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 18 instead of 15 in terms of Para 59.4 of the judgment passed in Pranay Sethi (supra) , as the deceased was 16 years old at the time of accident.

¶75

(IV) Under the head of loss of consortium, each claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- in terms of the judgment passed

¶76

in the case of Magma Insurance (supra) .

¶77

1.	^{Monthly income (along with 40%} futureprospects)	Rs. 2,106/- + Rs. 842/- = Rs. 2,948/-
2.	Annual income	Rs. 2,948/- X 12 = Rs. 35,376/-

(10 of 10)

[2026:RJ-JP:10553]

[CMA-3794/2007]

3.	Multiplierof18be applied	Rs. 35,376/- X 18 = Rs. 6,36,768/-
4.	Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the unmarried deceased(1/2)	Rs. 6,36,768/- – Rs. 3,18,384/- = Rs. 3,18,384/-
5.	Loss of consortium, love and affection	Rs.40,000/- X 2 = Rs.80,000/-
6.	Funeral expenses	Rs.15,000/-
7.	Loss of Estate	Rs.15,000/-
8.	Total Compensation (S. No. 4+5+6+7)	Rs.4,28,384/-
9.	Claim awarded bythe Tribunal	Rs.1,62,000/-
10.	Enhanced Amount to be paid to the claimants	Rs.4,28,384/- – Rs.1,62,000/- =Rs.2,66,384/- (along with the interest at the rate of6%to bepaid)

¶82

21. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, in view of the above discussion and law as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court is accordingly enhanced from Rs. 1,62,000/- to Rs. 4,28,384 /-. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.

¶83

22. Consequently, the enhanced amount of compensation, as redetermined herein above shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. The remaining conditions as mentioned in the award issued by the learned Tribunal are affirmed as it is.

¶84

23. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶85

24. All pending application, if any, stand(s) disposed.

¶86

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

¶87

(RAVI CHIRANIA),J

¶88

Monika

Pokhar Lal and Ors. v. Shri Hari Prakash and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pokhar Lal and Ors. v. Shri Hari Prakash and Ors.

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

Dr Keshav Chaturvedi S/O Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Vs Gayatri a. Rathore

Rajni Morwani W/O Dev Dutt Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamla Shankar Mishra S/O Shri Chotu Lal Mishra Vs the State of Rajasthan

Om Prakash and Ors. Vs Shri Hari Prakash and Ors.

Hari Singh Yadav S/O Nathuram Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Neelu Arya Matoria W/O Shri Ramswaroop Matoria Vs State of Rajasthan