Manbhar Sharma and Ors. Vs Khushi Ram Jat and Anr.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:7037]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 813/2017

¶4

Manbhar Sharma Widow Of Gopal Lal, R/o Udaie Kalan, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan.

¶5

Ku. Rekha D/o Gopal Lal, R/o Udaie Kalan, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan.

¶6

Ku. Meena Sharma D/o Gopal Lal, Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Her Mother Man, R/o Udaie Kalan, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan.

¶7

Neeraj Kumar Sharma S/o Gopal Lal, Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Her Mother, R/o Udaie Kalan, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan.

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Khushi Ram Jat S/o Birbal Jat, R/o Pichumar, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur Rajasthan. (Driver Of Bus No. Rj-29/pa-0529)

¶11

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Limited, Dausa Depot Raj. through its Transport Inspector, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Depot Hindaun City Shri Gajanand Jangid S/o Girraj Prasad Jangid R/o Adarsh Nagar, Ward No. 36, Gangapur City. Owner Of Bus No. Rj-29/pa-529

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Mr.Utkarsh Goyal for Mr.Rajneesh Gupta

¶14

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rajendra Singh & Ms.Manisha Yogi for Mr.Surendar Meel

¶15

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶16

Order

¶17

13/02/2026

¶18

By way of filing the instant appeal, the impugned judgment dated 02.01.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

[2026:RJ-JP:7037]

[CMA-813/2017]

(2 of 5)

Gangapur City (for short, “the Tribunal”) in MAC Case No.11/2015 by which the claim petition submitted by the claimants-appellants (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants”) has been partly allowed and the respondents have been directed to pay an amount of compensation of Rs.5,21,000/- to the claimants along-with interest. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned award, the claimants approached this Court by way of filing the instant appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation.

¶23

Learned counsel for the claimants submits that on 20.12.2014, the deceased was riding his cycle towards his village after selling milk and because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of roadways bus bearing No.RJ29-PA-0529, the accident occurred and the deceased died on the spot.

¶24

Counsel submits that on account of demise of the deceased, the claim petition was submitted before the Tribunal seeking suitable amount of compensation. Counsel submits that while passing the impugned award, the income of the deceased was determined as Rs.4,000/- without any basis. Counsel submits that though the fact that the deceased was falling under the category of unskilled daily wager was taken on record, even then, his monthly income has been determined as Rs.4,000/- without any basis. Counsel submits that as per the notification/ circular prevailing at the relevant time, the monthly wages of the unskilled labour was Rs.5,670/-, i.e., Rs.189/- per day. Counsel further submits that under the head of loss of consortium, a lumpsum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- only has been awarded while as per the

[2026:RJ-JP:7037]

[CMA-813/2017]

(3 of 5)

judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

¶29

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi &

¶30

Ors. reported in 2017 (16) SCC 860 , each of the claimants are entitled to get loss of consortium amount of Rs.40,000/- each. Counsel submits that under the head of future prospects, not a single penny has been awarded and under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, a lumpsum amount of Rs.25,000/has been awarded, while as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.30,000/- under these heads. Counsel submits that as per the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Nandu Devi & Anr. Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. , while deciding S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.769/2017 , it has been held that while determining monthly income of a daily wager, a period of 30 days instead of 26 days is ought to have been considered, hence, the monthly income of the deceased should have been considered as Rs.5,670/-, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted and appropriate orders may be passed for enhancing the amount of compensation in favour of the claimants.

¶31

Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the claimants and submits that a cogent and reasoned award has been passed after considering overall facts and circumstances of the case under all the heads. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the appeal submitted by the claimants is liable to be rejected.

[2026:RJ-JP:7037]

[CMA-813/2017]

(4 of 5)

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and

¶36

perused the material available on record.

¶37

Perusal of the record indicates that this fact is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the deceased was doing the job of a milkman, which falls under the category of unskilled labour and his age was 52 years at the time of accident and the incident has occurred on 20.12.2014 and as per the circular/notification prevailing at the relevant time issued by the Department of Labour, Government of Rajasthan, the monthly wages of an unskilled labour was Rs.189/- per day and as per the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Nandu Devi (supra), such daily wagers are entitled to get wages for 30 days instead of 26 days, hence, under these circumstances, the monthly income of the deceased should have been treated as Rs.5,670/-, but the learned Tribunal has committed an error while determining the same as Rs.4,000/- without any basis.

¶38

The controversy with regard to getting the amount of consortium, future prospects and loss of estate and funeral expenses has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), hence, under these circumstances and looking to the age of the deceased, ie., 52 years at the time of accident, the claimants are entitled to get 10% additional amount under the head of future prospects. Considering the fact that the lumpsum amount of Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses should have been granted in favour of the petitioner, but in the instant case, Rs.25,000/- has been granted

¶39

(5 of 5) [CMA-813/2017]

¶40

[2026:RJ-JP:7037]

¶41

by the Tribunal. Hence, the claimants are entitled to get the additional amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head of loss of estate. 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the claimants are entitled to get the following amount of enhanced

¶42

compensation as reproduce in the table hereinunder:-

¶43

Monthly income (with Personal Expense Deduction of 1/4th)	Rs.189 X 30 X 3/4 = Rs.4,252.5/-
Annual income	Rs.4,252.5 X 12 = Rs.51,030/-p.a.
Add 10 per cent towards futureprospects	Rs.51,030 X 10%= Rs.5,103/- (Rs.51,030 + Rs.5,103 = Rs.56,133/-)
Multiplier to be applied	11 Rs.56,133/- X 11 = Rs.6,17,463/-
Loss of Estate	Rs.15,000/-
Loss of Consortium, Love and Affection	Rs.40,000/- X 4= Rs.1,60,000/-
Funeral Expense	Rs.15,000/-
Total	Rs.8,07,463/-
Less amount awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.5,21,000/-
Enhanced amount of compensation	Rs.2,86,463/-

¶44

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands partly allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal stands modified to the extent that the claimant would now be entitled to get a further sum of Rs.2,86,463/- by way of enhanced compensation and the remaining terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact.

¶45

The respondents are directed to pay the above computed enhanced amount within a period of two months from today with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶46

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶47

Aayush Sharma /22

Manbhar Sharma and Ors. v. Khushi Ram Jat and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manbhar Sharma and Ors. v. Khushi Ram Jat and Anr.

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

Smt. Rekha S/O Late Shri Jagram Vs Lohda Ram Meena S/O Jagan Lal Meena

Ramanand Alias Mukesh Vs Babu Lal Yadav and Others

Smt. Suraj Kaur W/O Late Sh. Sultan Singh Vs Suresh Kumar S/O Kamal Singh

Smt Suman and Ors. Vs Dhadaram and Ors.

Bane Singh and Ors. Vs Babu Lal Meena and Ors.

Smt. Subhita W/O Shri Maniram Vs Salim S/O Chhotu Khan