Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Indra vs Jagdish Chandra on 29 April, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:20488]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 215/2024
1. Indra W/o Rajaram, Aged About 48 Years, B/c Bishnoi,
R/o BajjuKhalsa, Tehsil Shri Kolayat, Dist. Bikaner.
(Claimants)
2. Rajaram S/o Patram, Aged About 49 Years, B/c Bishnoi,
R/o BajjuKhalsa, Tehsil Shri Kolayat, Dist. Bikaner.
(Claimants)
----Appellants
Versus
1. Jagdish Chandra S/o Shri Ramuram, B/c Bishnoi, R/o
Bishnoiyon Ki Dhani, P.s. Sanchore, Tehsil Sanchore,
Dist. Bikaner. (Owner Of Vehicle No. Rj-46-Ca-1766)
2. National Insurance Company, Through Branch Manager,
Registered Office At Infront Of Urmul Circle, Near To
Audi Motors Showroom, Samta Nagar, Bikaner.
(Insurance Company)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aman Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. TRS Sodha (R-2)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Judgment
29/04/2025
1. Having suffered the devastating and irreparable loss of their
only 20-year-old son, a promising medical student, whose future
as a doctor was cruelly cut short in a tragic road accident--the
grieving parents are before this Court. With their dreams
shattered and their lives forever altered, they seek enhancement
of compensation by modification of the impugned judgment/award
dated 13.04.2023 passed in Claim Case No. 282/2019 by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner.
2. Brief facts first. The appellants are the legal representatives
of the deceased, Sunil Bishnoi, who had filed Claim Petition No.
282/2019 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:51:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20488] (2 of 10) [CMA-215/2024]
Bikaner, seeking compensation for the injuries caused by a road
accident. Subsequent to his death because of the injuries suffered
in the accident, the petitioners pursued the claim for
compensation before the learned Tribunal.
2.1 As per the averments in the claim petition, on 06.02.2019 at
around 9:00 AM, Sunil Bishnoi was traveling in Car No. RJ-46-CA-
1766 from Jodhpur to Udaipur, along with his friends Rohit, Sunil,
and Sonu. When the vehicle reached near Bhairunath Dhaba, it's
driver (son of respondent No. 1, also named Sunil, since
deceased), due to rash and negligent driving, hit a motorcycle. As
a result, the car driver lost it's control and collided with a road
divider, leading to injuries from iron angles installed along the
divider.
2.2 Sunil Bishnoi sustained grievous injuries in the accident and,
despite medical efforts, succumbed to his injuries.
2.3 All parties to the claim petition actively participated in the
proceedings. After considering the evidence and hearing the
parties, the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.
12,52,429/- to the appellants. Finding the compensation amount
awarded as inadequate, the appellants filed the present appeal.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
and perused the case file along with the documents annexed
therewith.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset, submits
that the learned Tribunal, while passing the impugned award dated
13.04.2023, failed to consider the material evidence on record,
thereby rendering the awarded compensation grossly unjust and
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:51:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20488] (3 of 10) [CMA-215/2024]
inadequate. The award suffers from a hyper-technical and narrow
approach, warranting its modification.
4.1 He contends that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income
of the deceased by merely applying the standard of minimum
wage of skilled worker without any realistic and reasonable
estimation or guesswork. This approach ignored the deceased's
academic background and future earning potential. It is submitted
that the deceased, Sunil Bishnoi, was a second-year MBBS student
at Sampoornanand Medical College, Jodhpur, having secured
admission through the highly competitive NEET examination. His
academic excellence and career prospects clearly demonstrated a
potential for significantly higher earnings than that of an unskilled
labourer, a factor the Tribunal failed to acknowledge.
4.2 Moreover, the Tribunal overlooked the socio-economic status
of the claimants and did not award reasonable amounts under the
heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate. Further, the Tribunal
applied an incorrect multiplier and made improper deductions,
thereby underestimating the compensation.
4.3 In light of the above, he argues that the impugned award is
arbitrary and legally unsustainable, therefore, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal be suitably enhanced by modifying the
impugned award.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company-
respondent No.2 opposes the appeal, primarily on the ground that
it is a conceded position that the victim (deceased) was a student
at the time of his death and being so, he did not have any income
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:51:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20488] (4 of 10) [CMA-215/2024]
and he was rather a liability on his family since the family had to
spend money on his education.
5.1 He would further argue that even if he were not to be
considered as a financial liability on the family, at best, he can be
considered in the category of skilled worker and on that basis, his
income has been correctly determined at the rate of Rs.299/- per
day, which was the notified wage for skilled labour in the State of
Rajasthan at the relevant time. Thus, the monthly income of
Rs.7,774/- was correctly taken by the learned Tribunal and no
interference is thus warranted by this Court.
6. I shall now proceed to render my opinion by recording
reasons thereof as per discussion hereinafter.
7. First and foremost, reference may be had to the relevant
part of the impugned award dated 13.04.2023, translated version
of which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
Xxxxxx xxxx xxxx
"Issue No. 04:
The burden to prove this issue lies upon the claimants.
Claimant Rajaram (AW-02), father of the deceased, testified during
examination-in-chief that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 21
years and 8 months old and was a second-year MBBS student at Sardar
Patel Medical College, Jodhpur. Along with his studies, the deceased
used to earn ₹25,000/- per month by giving coaching and tuition classes
to students.
To substantiate this, the claimant exhibited the deceased's college identity
card (Exhibit-14) and fee receipts (Exhibit-15).
Upon perusal of the evidence submitted regarding Issue No. 04, it is clear
that the claimant, through documentary evidence, exhibited the
deceased's college identity card (Exhibit-14), wherein the date of birth of
the deceased is mentioned as 14.06.1998.
Accordingly, at the time of the accident, the deceased was 21 years, 7
months, and 23 days old.
Thus, based on the deceased's medical college identity card, it is found
that his age was approximately 21 years at the time of the accident.
Therefore, following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others, the multiplier of 18 is held to be appropriate and justifiable.
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:51:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20488] (5 of 10) [CMA-215/2024]
The claimant, Rajaram, stated that at the time of the accident, the
deceased Sunil was earning ₹25,000/- per month by providing tuition to
students alongside his medical studies. However, no documentary
evidence such as a bank passbook or similar proof has been presented to
support this claim; hence, it is not deemed acceptable.
Considering that the deceased was a meritorious student who had
qualified the national-level NEET examination and secured admission in
a Government Medical College where he was pursuing his second year of
studies, it is just and appropriate to determine the deceased's income
based on the minimum wages applicable to highly skilled workers, as per
the notification issued by the Labour Department, Rajasthan, for the year
2019.
Accordingly, based on the prevailing rate of minimum wages for highly
skilled workers in Rajasthan at that time, the monthly income is assessed
at ₹7,774/- (calculated at the rate of ₹299/- per day).
In accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi& Others, it is appropriate
to award compensation to the claimants towards loss of future prospects.
Since the deceased was self-employed and aged below 40 years, an
addition of 40% towards future prospects is justified, which amounts to
₹3,109.6/- (i.e., 40% of ₹7,774/-).
Thus, after including the component towards future prospects, the total
monthly income is determined at ₹10,883.6/-.
The claimants no. 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased, who were
dependent upon him at the time of the accident. Therefore, it is
appropriate to deduct 50% of the income towards the personal and living
expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the calculation of the loss caused
due to the death of the deceased is as follows:
Monthly Income × 12 Months × Multiplier of 18= ₹10,883.6 × 12 × 18=
₹23,50,858/-
After deducting 50% towards the deceased's personal and living
expenses:
₹23,50,858 ÷ 2 = ₹11,75,429/-
Thus, the total loss of dependency is assessed at ₹11,75,429/-.
Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation of
₹11,75,429/- under the head of loss of income due to the death of Sunil.
The Hon'ble Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, has
laid down the guidelines for the computation of compensation in accident
claim cases. In the said judgment, the Apex Court directed that under the
conventional heads such as compensation for loss of love and affection,
funeral expenses, and loss of estate, the amounts shall be increased by
10% every three years.
Accordingly, in the present case, the claimants, having lost the love,
affection, and daily care of the deceased due to his untimely demise, are
entitled to be awarded a sum of ₹44,000/- towards compensation for loss
of love and affection. Further, since the claimants conducted the funeral
rites of the deceased, they are also entitled to ₹16,500/- towards funeral
expenses. Additionally, ₹16,500/- is awarded towards loss of estate on
account of the accident.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation for the deceased
under the following heads:
S.No. Particulars Amount (₹)
1. Loss of income due to death 11,75,429/-
2. Compensation for loss of love and affection 44,000/-
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:51:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20488] (6 of 10) [CMA-215/2024]
S.No. Particulars Amount (₹)
3. Funeral expenses 16,500/-
4. Loss of estate 16,500/-
Total 12,52,429/-
Accordingly, the claimants No. 01 and 02 are entitled to a total
compensation amount of ₹12,52,429/- in relation to the death of Sunil.
Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the claimants accordingly.
DECREE
In view of the deliberations on the disputed points, it is concluded that the
application filed by the claimants, Rajaram et al., is admissible against
the respondents, namely Respondent No. 01 (Jagdishchandra) and
Respondent No. 02 (National Insurance Company Limited).
ORDER
Thus, the application of the claimants, Rajaram et al., under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990,
is accepted against Respondent No. 01 (Jagdishchandra) and Respondent
No. 02 (National Insurance Company Limited) either separately or jointly.
An award of ₹12,52,429/- (Twelve Lakh Fifty-Two Thousand Four
Hundred Twenty-Nine Only) is granted.
If any interim compensation assistance has been received by the claimants
under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it shall be adjusted from the
awarded amount, and the remaining amount shall be paid accordingly.
The award amount will bear simple interest at the rate of 7.00% per
annum from the date of the application submission, 02.07.2019. The
request for the remaining compensation amount by the petitioners is
rejected. The applicant has not submitted a certified copy of their savings
account from the bank officer, a copy of the PAN card, and a copy of the
Aadhaar card, which must be submitted to the authority immediately. The
division of the award amount among the petitioners will be done as
follows:
Sr.
Petitioner’s Name Savings Account F.D.R. Amount Duration
No.
1,00,000/- One year
Rajaram, son of Shri 1,88,429/- with 1,00,000/- Three years
01
Patram interest 1,00,000/- Five years
1,38,000/- Seven years
1,00,000/- Two years
Indra, wife of Shri 1,88,000/- with 1,00,000/- Four years
02
Rajaram interest 1,00,000/- Six years
1,38,000/- Eight yearsXxxx xxxx
8. Having perused the impugned award, at the outset I may
express my opinion that the learned Tribunal’s approach has been
wholly unrealistic, unduly pedantic, hypertechnical and very
narrow leading to the too low assessment of the income potential
of the deceased. The MACT awarded ₹12,52,429 based on the
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:51:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20488] (7 of 10) [CMA-215/2024]minimum wage for a skilled worker (₹7,774/- per month), even
though the deceased, Sunil Bishnoi, was a second-year MBBS
student, having cleared NEET — one of India’s toughest
competitive exams.
9. I am of the considered opinion that in cases of the nature, as
the one in hand, when dealing with young professionals-in-
training, courts must rise above the rigid arithmetical calculations
and insistence of income proof. A purely mathematical or
minimum-wage-based approach risks devaluing education,
aspiration, and merit — which are highly valued and zealously
protected by the law. Apart therefrom, realistic compensation not
only ensures restorative justice for the bereaved family but also
serves as a deterrent to negligent driving, reinforcing
accountability in road safety.
10. In present case, there has been wholly unrealistic and
unduly low assessment of income of the victim of accident as that
of a skilled worker, totally ignoring the earning potential of a
future doctor — a respected and remunerative profession. This, in
my opinion, is/ was a grave error and gross underestimation of
the income potential of the accident victim. It is common
knowledge that on completion professional courses like MBBS or
engineering, such students have the potential to earn far above
and multiple times of the minimum wage of a skilled worker. The
Tribunal rejected the claim of income of ₹25,000/- per month
tuition earnings due to lack of documentary proof. However, it
failed to make a realistic assessment and apply judicial mind to
the deceased’s academic trajectory while assessing his potential
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:51:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20488] (8 of 10) [CMA-215/2024]
future earnings. Thus, the learned Tribunal committed a manifest
error in law by applying a rigid and overly conservative formula for
assessment of notional income to a case where the deceased’s
future earnings and familial contribution were clearly poised for
excellence. A corrective and compassionate course is warranted in
the case in hand.
11. In Bishnupriya Panda Vs. BasantiManjari Mohanty
&Anr.1 decided on 04.08.2023, relied upon by he Learned counsel
for the appellants the deceased was 4th year student of MBBS aged
about 21 years when the accident occurred in July, 2013. The
learned Tribunal had assessed his notional income of Rs. 50,000/-
per month in year 2013 and added 40% of the same towards
future prospects. The Apex Court held that in so far as the
notional income reckoned and the parameters adopted to reach
the same, the Tribunal was justified.
12. In the light of aforesaid precedent and bearing in mind the
spirit of law and the relevant principles enunciated in National
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi2 and for a holistic,
realistic and just approach to valuing the life and earning potential
of the deceased, I am of the view that the award needs to be
modified for upward reassessment of his notional income.
13. In present case, the accident took place on 06.02.2019. At
that time, the deceased was 21 years and 8 months old and was a
second-year MBBS student at Sardar Patel Medical College,
Jodhpur. Taking cue from the view taken by the Apex Court in
Bishnupriya Panda supra and allowing for overall general trend
1 Supreme Court- Civil Appeal No.4911 of 2023
2 (2017) 16 SCC 680
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:51:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20488] (9 of 10) [CMA-215/2024]
of increase in the income with passage of time from 2013 to
2019, I am of the opinion that it would be fair and reasonable to
assess the income potential of the Sunil Bishnoi deceased at the
time of his death in 2019 as Rs. 70,000/- per month. Adding 40%
of the same towards future prospects, his notional income would
come up to the sum of Rs.98,000/-. By deducting it’s 50% i.e.
Rs.49,000/- towards self expenses, the dependency of the
claimants comes to Rs.49,000/- on which compensation ought to
be calculated and awarded. Applying the multiplier of 18 (as also
applied by the learned Tribunal), the compensation for the death
of the deceased would come to Rs. 1,05,84,000/-.
14. Under the head ‘loss of love and affection / consortium’, the
learned Tribunal awarded total combined compensation of Rs.
44000/- to both the unfortunate petitioner/parents. Each of them
ought to have been awarded compensation of Rs. 44000/- on this
count i.e. total Rs. 88,000/-.
15. In view of my discussion and reasoning contained
hereinabove and in light of the judgments supra, revised /
modified calculations of the compensation are tabulated as below:
Particulars Details
Date of Accident/Death 06.02.2019
20 years and 7 months 23
Age of Deceased
days
Claimants Mother and Father
Monthly Income of
₹ 70,000/-
Deceased
Future Prospects (40%) ₹ 70,000 + ₹ 28,000- = ₹ 98,000/-
Deduction for Personal
₹ 98,000 - ₹ 49,000 = ₹ 49,000/-
Expenses (½)
Annual Dependency ₹ 49,000 × 12 = ₹ 5,88,000/-
Total Loss of
Dependency (Multiplier ₹ 5,88,000 × 18 = ₹ 1,05,84,000/-
of 18)
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:51:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20488] (10 of 10) [CMA-215/2024]
Particulars Details
Loss of Consortium for
the two parents (₹44,000 ₹ 88,000/-
× 2)
Loss of Estate and ₹ 33,000 (Estate) + ₹ 16,500
Funeral Expenses (Funeral) = ₹ 49,500/-
₹ 1,05,84,000 + ₹ 88,000 + ₹
Total Compensation
49,500 = ₹ 1,07,21,500/-
Compensation Awarded
₹ 12,52,429/-
by Tribunal
Enhanced Compensation ₹ 1,07,13,500 - ₹ 12,52,429 =
amount to be Paid ₹ 94,69,071/-
16. The enhanced amount of compensation with interest thereon
@ 7% per annum from the date of filing of compensation
application (02.07.2019) before the learned Tribunal shall be paid
to appellants No. 1 and 2 in equal shares initially by respondent
No. 2 (insurance company), who may, thereafter, take appropriate
proceedings against respondent No.1 for it’s recovery, if so
advised and found otherwise admissible.
17. The appeal is allowed as above.
18. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
92-DhananjayS/-
Whether fit for reporting: Yes / No
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:51:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)