Nanagi Devi and Ors. Vs Mukesh Kumar and Ors.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5791/2017

¶3

Nanagi Devi W/o Late Chhitar Mal, R/o Village Nandiwali Dhani Near Murgi Farm, Hathoj, Jaipur

¶4

Hanuman Sahai Jat S/o Late Chhitar Mal, R/o Village Nandiwali Dhani Near Murgi Farm, Hathoj, Jaipur

¶5

Ramprasad @ Ramprakash S/o Late Chhitar Mal, R/o Village Nandiwali Dhani Near Murgi Farm, Hathoj, Jaipur

¶6

Tarachand S/o Late Chhitar Mal, R/o Village Nandiwali Dhani Near Murgi Farm, Hathoj, Jaipur

¶7

Rakesh S/o Late Chhitar Mal, R/o Village Nandiwali Dhani Near Murgi Farm, Hathoj, Jaipur

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mukesh Kumar S/o Shankar Lal, Vinobapuri, Bassi Naga, Thana Jobner Tehsil Lera Distt. Jaipur Driver

¶11

Banwari Lal Verma S/o Shankar Lal Verma, R/o A-137, Greenpark, Nirwaru Road, Govindpura Thana Kardhani, Jaipur Owner

¶12

The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, M.i. Road, Jaipur Insurance Company Of Vehicle

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Gupta

¶15

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶16

Order

¶17

10/02/2026

¶18

By way of filing the instant appeal, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment and award dated 18.07.2017, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in MAC No. 221/2015, by which a

¶19

(2 of 5)

¶20

[CMA-5791/2017]

¶21

compensation of Rs. 5,18,808/- has been granted in favour of the appellants-claimants (for short, ‘the claimants’).

¶22

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the instant appeal has been preferred seeking enhancement of the same. 3. Counsel for the claimants submits that the husband of the claimant No. 1 who was also the father of the claimant Nos. 2 to 5 met with an accident on 09.12.2014 when he was crossing the road and all of a sudden a car bearing No. RJ-01-CA-7299, being driven recklessly by the respondent No.1, struck him and caused an accident due to which he sustained multiple injuries and died. Counsel submits that on account of death of the deceased, a claim petition was submitted by the claimants before the Tribunal. Counsel submits that the Tribunal has treated the deceased as unskilled labour and determined his monthly income for 26 days in a month while the same should have been considered for 30 days in a month. Counsel further submits that the total number of dependents were five in number, hence the deduction of 1/4th was applicable but the Tribunal has applied the deduction of 1/3rd while determining the compensation awardable to the claimants. Counsel submits that even under the head of loss of consortium a meager amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded, hence the same needs to suitably enhanced to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- for each claimant in terms of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NIC Vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 . Counsel submits that the age of the deceased was 60 years at the time of accident, hence the

¶23

[CMA-5791/2017]

¶24

(3 of 5)

¶25

claimants are entitled to get an additional 10% under the head of loss of future prospects in light of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra).

¶26

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the income of the deceased was assessed as per the notification issued by the Department of Labour, Government of Rajasthan for a period of 26 days in a month but as per the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Nandu Devi and Anr. Vs. Sohan Lal and Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 769/2019, decided on 23.02.2022), the monthly wages of the deceased should have been considered for 30 days in a month.

¶27

As per the proposition of law as propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), all the dependents of the deceased are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium but in the instant case, a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded under this head to the claimants. Hence, the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- each under this head in terms of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). Similarly, looking to the fact that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 60 years, the claimants are entitled to get an additional 10% towards loss of future prospects in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). Lastly, the claimants were in all five in number, hence a deduction of 1/4th would be applicable in

¶28

(4 of 5) [CMA-5791/2017]

¶29

terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla

¶30

Verma & Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr , reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 but the Tribunal, without any basis, has erroneously ordered for deduction of 1/3rd instead of 1/4th while determining the compensation amount.

¶31

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case,

¶32

the claimants are entitled to get following enhanced amount as reproduced in the table hereunder:

¶33

Monthly Income (along with additional 10% for loss of future prospects)	189 X 30 + 189 X 30 X 10/100 = 5670 + 567 = Rs. 6,237/-
Deduction for Personal and Living Expenses	Rs. 6,237 – Rs. 6,237 X ¼ 6237 – 1559.25 = Rs. 4,677.75
Annual Income	4677.75 X 12 = Rs. 56,133/-
Multiplier to be applied	9 56,133 X 9 = Rs. 5,05,197/-
Loss of Consortium	40,000 X 5 = Rs. 2,00,000/-
Funeral Expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
Total Compensation Awardable	Rs. 7,20,197/-
Less compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Rs. 5,18,808/-
Enhanced Compensation	Rs. 2,01,389/-

¶34

The appeal accordingly stands partly allowed and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal stands modified to the extent that the appellants-claimants are entitled to get a further sum of Rs.2,01,389/- by way of enhanced compensation and the remaining terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact. 9. It is further ordered that out of the enhanced amount a sum

¶35

of Rs.1,00,000/- be deposited in the Savings Bank Account of the

¶36

[CMA-5791/2017]

¶37

(5 of 5)

¶38

claimants and the remaining amount be deposited in a fixed deposit with any Nationalized Bank initially for a period of three years and the interest accrued on the said amount shall be paid to the claimant on monthly basis.

¶39

The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of four weeks from today with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶40

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶41

Ashu/36

Nanagi Devi and Ors. v. Mukesh Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanagi Devi and Ors. v. Mukesh Kumar 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khawaju Khan S/O Jumma Khan Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.

Prakash Chand S/O Indraj Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kailash Vs Ghanshyam and Others

Vinod Kumar Son of Puran Singh, Vs Rohtash Son of Bhagwan Singh

Chandar Bairwa S/O Shri Ghasiram Vs Shimbhudayal Saini S/O Shri Narayan Saini

Latoor S/O Ramnath Vs Mahesh Chand Yogi S/O Phool Chand