Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Smt Pushpa And Ors vs Hemraj And Anr (2026:Rj-Jp:14433) on 7 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:14433]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6529/2017
1. Smt. Pushpa W/o Late Shri Mahaveer,
2. Dinesh S/o Late Shri Mahaveer,
3. Geeta D/o Late Shri Mahaveer,
4. Pankaj S/o Late Shri Mahaveer,
5. Gopal S/o Shri Bajrang,
6. Smt. Mohani W/o Shri Gopal,
All R/o Village Taswariya, Tehsil - Kekri Distt. Ajmer
----Claimants-Appellants
Versus
1. Hemraj S/o Shri Rang Lal, R/o Village Indoli Tehsil- Malpura,
Distt. Tonk (Driver-cum-owner of the Jeep No.RJ-14-UA-2139)
2. National Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional
Manager, Branch Office at Kachahari Road, Ajmer (Raj.),
having its Regional Office at LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle,
Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur (Insurer of the Jeep No. RJ-14-
UA-2139)
----Non-claimants-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aditya Sharma for
Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma
Ms. Manorma Sharma with
Ms. Manju Chauhan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Judgment
07/04/2026
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants (for
short ‘claimants’) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
against the judgment and award dated 01.06.2017, passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kekri, District – Ajmer (for short
‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No. 114/2010 whereby the claim petition filed
by the claimants was partly allowed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the
claimants filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal stating
therein that on 21.04.2010, Mahaveer was going on a motorcycle
bearing registration No. RJ-01-13M-9230 alongwith his relatives Shanti
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 09:20:10 AM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 08:50:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:14433] (2 of 8) [CMA-6529/2017]
Devi and Santosh Devi from Kekri to village Jhadali. At around 11:00
AM, a Jeep bearing registration No.RJ14-UA-2139 being driven by
respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite
side and hit the motorcycle, as a result of which, Mahaveer sustained
injuries and subsequently died.
3. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.
79,45,000/- on account of death of Mahaveer.
4. The respondent-Insurance Company filed reply to the claim
petition and denied its liability to pay compensation on the ground that
the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself, as
he was riding the motorcycle with two pillion riders and was also not in
possession of a valid driving license.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal
framed six issues and after evaluating the evidence on record, partly
allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 4,49,384/-,
in favour of the claimants, along with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date
of filing of the claim petition till payment.
6. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, this
appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the
compensation so awarded.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the learned
Tribunal has committed an error in assessing 20% contributory
negligence of deceased merely on the ground that while driving the
motorcycle, he was not having a valid driving license and three persons
were sitting on the motorcycle at the time of accident. In support of his
contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments
passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mohammed
Siddique & Anr Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors;
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 09:20:10 AM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 08:50:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:14433] (3 of 8) [CMA-6529/2017]
reported in 2020 (3) SCC 57 and Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder
Singh & Ors, reported in 2008 (12) SCC 436.
7.1 Learned counsel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal
has also committed error in assessing the monthly income of the
deceased on the basis of minimum wages payable to an unskilled
worker, as notified by the State Government. He has also submitted
that as on the date of accident, the deceased was running a salon and
was working as a Barber, which is considered to be a skilled job,
therefore, the monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of
calculation of loss of dependency ought to have been calculated on the
basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker.
7.2 He has further contended that the compensation under the
conventional heads of loss of consortium, loss of funeral expenses and
loss of estate should also be re-assessed, as per the guidelines laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16
SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu
Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the
submissions made hereinabove by learned counsel for the claimants
and has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by
the learned Tribunal is just and fair, therefore, requires no interference
by this Court. He has further submitted that since deceased was not
having a valid driving license and more than two persons were sitting
on the motorcycle, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly held the
deceased liable for contributory negligence to the extent of 20%. He
has also submitted that the learned Tribunal has made addition @ 30%
in the income of the deceased towards future prospects, however,
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 09:20:10 AM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 08:50:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:14433] (4 of 8) [CMA-6529/2017]
considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident i.e. 45
years, addition @ 25% should be made.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
10. The first issue for consideration is whether the deceased should
have been made liable for contributory negligence to the extent of 20%,
merely on the ground that while driving the motorcycle, he was not
having a valid driving license and three persons were sitting on the
motorcycle at the time of accident.
10.1 From a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and award, it is
revealed that the plea raised by the Insurance Company alleging that
the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased, was
specifically rejected by the learned Tribunal. Rather, a specific finding of
fact was recorded that the accident had occurred due to negligence of
the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Jeep, which was being driven
rashly and negligently. However, despite concluding that deceased was
not at fault in the accident, the learned Tribunal attributed contributory
negligence to him merely because he did not have a valid driving
license and was riding the motorcycle alongwith two pillion riders.
10.2 In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the judgment passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra)
where, while dealing with the issue of contributory negligence in case of
injured not possessing a valid driving license, it was held that in the
absence of a specific finding that the injured was driving the two-
wheeler rashly and negligently, the mere fact that the claimant was
driving without a valid driving license cannot be a ground to hold him
guilty of contributory negligence. The relevant paras are reproduced
hereunder:-
“8. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he
commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion,(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 09:20:10 AM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 08:50:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:14433] (5 of 8) [CMA-6529/2017]may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the
accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was
the driver of the mini-truck which was being driven rashly
and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant
was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has
been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler
rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and
negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to
see as to how, only because he was not having a licence,
he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence.
9. The matter might have been different if by reason
of his rash and negligent driving, the accident had taken
place.”
(emphasis supplied)
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mohammed
Siddique (supra), has held that if more than two persons are sitting on
a motorcycle, such a person cannot be held liable for contributory
negligence unless it is established that the act of riding with two others
contributed either to the occurrence of the accident or to the impact of
the accident on the victim. The relevant para is reproduced hereunder:-
“12. But the above reason, in our view, is flawed. The fact
that the deceased was riding on a motorcycle along with
the driver and another, may not, by itself, without
anything more, make him guilty of contributory
negligence. At the most, it would make him guilty of
being a party to the violation of the law. Section 128 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the
driver of a two-wheeled motorcycle, not to carry more
than one person on the motorcycle. Section 194-C,
inserted by Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a
penalty for violation of safety measures for motorcycle
drivers and pillion riders. Therefore, the fact that a person
was a pillion rider on a motorcycle along with the driver
and one more person on the pillion, may be a violation of
the law. But such violation by itself, without anything
more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence,
unless it is established that his very act of riding along
with two others, contributed either to the accident or to
the impact of the accident upon the victim. There must
either be a causal connection between the violation and
the accident or a causal connection between the violation
and the impact of the accident upon the victim. It may so
happen at times, that the accident could have been
averted or the injuries sustained could have been of a
lesser degree, if there had been no violation of the law by
the victim. What could otherwise have resulted in a
simple injury, might have resulted in a grievous injury or
even death due to the violation of the law by the victim.
It is in such cases, where, but for the violation of the law,(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 09:20:10 AM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 08:50:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:14433] (6 of 8) [CMA-6529/2017]either the accident could have been averted or the impact
could have been minimized, that the principle of
contributory negligence could be invoked. It is not the
case of the insurer that the accident itself occurred as a
result of three persons riding on a motorcycle. It is not
even the case of the insurer that the accident would have
been averted, if three persons were not riding on the
motorcycle. The fact that the motorcycle was hit by the
car from behind, is admitted. Interestingly, the finding
recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was wearing a
helmet and that the deceased was knocked down after
the car hit the motorcycle from behind, are all not
assailed. Therefore, the finding of the High Court that 2
persons on the pillion of the motorcycle, could have added
to the imbalance, is nothing but presumptuous and is not
based either upon pleading or upon the evidence on
record. Nothing was extracted from PW 3 to the effect
that 2 persons on the pillion added to the imbalance.”
(emphasis supplied)
10.3 In light of the above judgments, it can be said that the driving a
motorcycle without valid driving license and with two pillion riders may
be a violation of Motor Vehicles Rules but the same by itself cannot be a
basis to make the deceased liable for contributory negligence in the
occurrence of accident, unless there is a specific finding that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.
10.4 Hence, taking into consideration the fact that the learned Tribunal
specifically recorded a finding of fact that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Jeep and no negligence
was accrued upon the deceased, this Court is of the view that the
learned Tribunal was not justified in holding the deceased liable for
contributory negligence.
10.5 In view of the above, the finding of the learned Tribunal to the
extent of holding deceased liable for 20% contributory negligence, is
hereby quashed and set aside.
11. The next issue raised by the learned counsel for the claimants is
that the deceased was working as Barber, therefore, his income should
be calculated on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled
worker.
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 09:20:10 AM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 08:50:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:14433] (7 of 8) [CMA-6529/2017]
11.1 In exercise of the powers conferred upon the State Government
under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the State of Rajasthan has
notified the minimum wages for unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled and
highly skilled worker, and while notifying the same, Barber has been
treated as a skilled worker.
11.2 In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that in absence of the
cogent evidence regarding income of the deceased, the monthly income
of the deceased under the head of loss of dependency will be calculated
on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker at the
relevant point of time which was Rs. 115/- per day.
12. Furthermore, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram
(supra), the claimants are also entitled to get compensation towards
three conventional heads. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.40,000/- will
be awarded to each of the claimants separately, under the head of loss
of consortium. Also, compensation of 15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.
15,000/- for funeral expenses will also be awarded to the claimants.
13. Moreover, this Court also finds substance in the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the respondents that the learned Tribunal
was not justified in making addition @ 30% in the income of the
deceased towards his personal expenses. Since, at the time of accident,
the age of the deceased was 45 years, therefore, addition @ 25% will
be made in the income of the deceased towards future prospects.
14. As a result of the above discussions, the compensation payable to
claimants is re-assessed as under:-
S.No. Particular Amount assessed
1. Monthly Income Rs.115 x 30 = Rs.3450/-
2. Annual Income Rs. 3450 x 12 = Rs.41,400/-
3. According to the age of the Rs.41,400 x 14
deceased i.e. 45 years,
multiplier 14 to be applied = Rs.5,79,600/-
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 09:20:10 AM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 08:50:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:14433] (8 of 8) [CMA-6529/2017]
4. As per dependency, 1/4 income Rs.5,79,600 - Rs.1,44,900
to be deduced for personal
expenses of the deceased (-) = Rs.4,34,700/-
5. Add 25% towards future Rs.4,34,700 + Rs.1,08,675
prospects (+) = Rs.5,43,375/-
6. Total loss of Dependency Rs.5,43,375/-
7. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000 x 6
(six dependants) = Rs.2,40,000/-
8. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
9. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
10. Medical Bills Rs.16,850/-
(as awarded by the Tribunal)
11. Hospitalization Expenses Rs.12,480/-
(as awarded by the Tribunal)
12. Transportation Expenses Rs.1,000/-
(as awarded by the Tribunal)
Total compensation Rs.8,43,705/-
(S.No. 6+7+8+9+10+11+12)
Less amount awarded by the Rs.4,49,384/-
Tribunal (-)
Enhanced amount of Rs. 3,94,321/-
compensation
15. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is
enhanced by Rs.3,94,321/-. The rest of the impugned award shall
remain intact. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced
amount within a period of two months from today.
16. It is directed that the enhanced amount shall carry the rate of
interest in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal, from the
date of filing of the claim petition. The enhanced amount shall be
disbursed in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal.
17. The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
18. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J
SKS/76
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 09:20:10 AM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 08:50:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)