Smt Apsana and Others Vs Lumba Ram and Others

Arjun Singh S/o Shri Gaje Singh, R/o Housing Board Colony, Rajsamand -(Owner of Vehicle No. R.J.-027-G.A.-4018) 3. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Division Office at 1, Ashok Circle, Alwar (Raj.) - Insurer of Vehicle No. R.J.-027-G.A.-4018)

¶18

----Non-Claimants/Respondents

¶19

For Appellant(s)	: Ms.	Swati Sharma for
	Mr.	Girish Khandelwal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Devendra Kumar Chauhan

(2 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:5157]

[CMA-404/2016]

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶24

Order

¶25

04/02/2026

¶26

The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 08.09.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar (for short “the Tribunal”) in MACT Case No.52/2014 by which the claim petition submitted by the appellants has been allowed and compensation of Rs.12,54,200/has been awarded.

¶27

Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the claimants-appellants (for short “the claimants”) have approached this Court by way of filing the instant appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submits that on the date of the accident, the deceasedMohammad Barkat was driving a heavy motor vehicle, which met with an accident, wherein he suffered multiple grievous injuries resulting in his death. Learned counsel submits that the deceased was a Driver and his monthly income was around Rs.15,000/- but the Tribunal has determined his income as Rs.6000/- only without any basis. She further submits that not a single penny has been awarded in favour of the claimants under the head of Future Prospects, in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

¶29

Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 860 . Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

[2026:RJ-JP:5157]

[CMA-404/2016]

(3 of 6)

Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the claimants and submits that no documentary proof with regard to salary of the deceased was produced on the record, hence under these circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, interference of this Court is not warranted and the instant misc. appeal is liable to be rejected.

¶34

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that an accident occurred on 14.12.2013 wherein the vehicle of the deceased collided with the offending vehicle, due to which the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and succumbed to death on the spot. Subsequently, the charge-sheet was submitted against the Driver of the offending vehicle and thereafter, the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) was submitted by the dependents of the deceased, i.e., the claimants before the Tribunal.

¶35

After considering the evidence led by both the parties, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.12,54,200/- under various heads to the claimants with interest @ 7.5% p.a. with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶36

So far as the argument raised by the counsel for the claimants that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.15,000/- is concerned, the record reveals that no documentary evidence has been led in this regard, hence, under these

[2026:RJ-JP:5157]

[CMA-404/2016]

(4 of 6)

circumstances, with no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.15,000/- per month. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has not committed any error in determining the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6000/-.

¶41

So far as the other argument raised by the counsel for the claimants is concerned, no future prospects have been awarded to the claimants in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court finds substance in this argument. Perusal of the impugned award indicates that not a single penny has been awarded by the Tribunal under the head of future prospects.

¶42

As per the law, propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, if the age of the deceased was below 40 years and if he was self-employed or on a fixed salary, then the dependents of the deceased shall be entitled to get future prospects of 40% of the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, under this head, the impugned award needs to be enhanced. 12. Looking to the fact that the age of the deceased was 29 years, at the time of accident, the claimants are entitled to get 40% amount under the head of future prospects against the salary of the deceased.

¶43

Looking to the fact that there are as many as eight dependents upon the deceased, the multiplier of 1/5th would be applicable to the instant case as the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein

[2026:RJ-JP:5157]

[CMA-404/2016]

(5 of 6)

the respondent-Insurance Company was directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation.

¶48

In the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that all the dependents of the deceased shall be entitled to get compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium, love and affection and a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral expenses.

¶49

Since the Tribunal has only awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- under the head of consortium, love and affection, the claimants shall be entitled to get further enhanced amount of Rs.3,20,000/- under this head. An amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head of funeral expenses has been awarded, which is to be reduced to Rs.15,000/-.

¶50

The claimants are entitled to get the following amount as reproduced in the chart hereunder:-

¶51

Annual Income	6000 X 12-1/5^th=Rs.57,600/-
Multiplier to be applied	17 57,600 X 17 = Rs.9,79,200/-
Add 40 per cent towards future prospects	Rs. 9,79,200/- + Rs.3,91,680/- =Rs.13,70,880/-
Loss of consortium, love & affection	40,000 X 8 = Rs.3,20,000/-
Loss of Estate	Rs.15,000/-
Funeral Expenses	Rs.15,000/-
Total Compensation Awardable	Rs.17,20,880/-
Less amount awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.12,54,200/-
Enhanced amount of compensation	Rs.4,66,680/-

[2026:RJ-JP:5157]

[CMA-404/2016]

(6 of 6)

Thus, in the facts and circumstances, an amount of Rs.4,66,680/- is required to be enhanced in the present case and the respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the judgment dated 08.09.2015 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Needless to say, the enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the actual payment is made.

¶56

It is further ordered that out of the enhanced amount, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be disbursed by the Tribunal in the Savings Bank Account of the claimants and the balance amount of enhanced compensation, i.e., Rs.3,66,680/- shall be invested in any of the Nationalised Bank initially for a period of three years and interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the claimants of the deceased on monthly basis.

¶57

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶58

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶59

Karan/8

Smt Apsana and Others v. Lumba Ram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Apsana and Others v. Lumba Ram and Others

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

Mohan Lal S/O Jansiram Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Rekha Rani W/O Late Shri Anil Kumar, Vs Ramratan S/O Shri Prabhudayal Vayas

Ranjana Widow of Late Shri Dharam Chand Vs Ashok Kumar S/O Radhey Shyam

Shiv Raj Vs Santosh Kumar and Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dal Chand and Others

United India Insurence Co. Ltd. Vs Chhatar Singh and Ors.