Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
R S R T C Thr Gen Manager vs Jaya Nihal Chandani And Ors … on 16 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:15914]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5690/2016
1. Jayanihal Chandani W/o Late Shri Mohanlal
Nihalchandani, age about 40 years, R/o Chota Takhta,
Telion Ki Gali, Tonk
2. Vinod Kumar S/o Late Shri Mohanlal Nihalchandani, age
about 40 years, R/o Chota Takhta, Telion Ki Gali, Tonk
3. Hemlata D/o Late Shri Mohanlal Nihalchandani, age about
40 years, R/o Chota Takhta, Telion Ki Gali, Tonk
----Appellants/Claimants
Versus
1. Mohammad Mumtaj S/o Mohd. Akil, By Caste Musalman,
Kumharon Ki Chowki, Kalipaltan, Tonk
2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through
General Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur
----Respondents/Non-claimants
Connected With
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6043/2016
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (R.S.R.T.C),
Through Its General Manager, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House,
Jaipur, Rajasthan (Registered Owner, Vehicle Bus No. RJ-26-PA-
00443)
—-Appellant
Versus
1. Jaya Nihal Chandani W/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal Nihal
Chandani,age about 40 years, R/o Chhota Takhta, Teliyon
Ki Gali, Tonk
2. Vinod Kumar S/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal Nihal Chandani, age
about 20 years, R/o Chhota Takhta, Teliyon Ki Gali, Tonk
3. Hemlaea D/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal Nihal Chandani, age
about 19 years, R/o Chhota Takhta, Teliyon Ki Gali, Tonk
4. Mohemmad Mumtaz S/o Mohemmad Akeel,R/o Kumharon
Ki Chhoki, Kalipaltan, Tonk (Driver Bus No. RJ-26-PA-
0443)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akshay Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Goyal (for appellant in
CMA No. 6043/2016)
Mr. Atul Kumar Jain
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:07:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:00:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15914] (2 of 7) [CMA-5690/2016]
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Judgment
16/04/2026
1. These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated
25.07.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Tonk (for short ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No. 300/2015, whereby the
claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants (respondents in
CMA No. 6043/2016) was partly allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.02.2015, when
Mohan Lal (since deceased) was going to Nehru Park near
Sabilshah Chowki on his Activa scooter, a bus bearing registration
No. RJ26-PA-0443, belonging to Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation (for short ‘appellant-Corporation’), and being driven
by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the scooter. As a
result of which, Mohan Lal sustained grievous injuries and
subsequently died.
2.1 Thereafter, the claimants filed a claim petition before the
learned Tribunal, which was partly allowed, and a compensation of
Rs. 8,14,170/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition, was awarded in their favour.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, Appeal No.5960/2016 has been preferred by
the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation, whereas
Appeal No.6043/2016 has been preferred by the appellant-
Corporation assailing the validity and legality of the impugned
judgment and award.
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:07:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:00:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15914] (3 of 7) [CMA-5690/2016]
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submits that
the FIR was lodged on 02.03.2015, i.e., with a delay of eight days
from the date of accident, which creates doubt regarding the
occurrence of the accident. Learned counsel further submits that
the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased
himself, as he was speaking on his mobile phone while riding the
scooter and was not wearing a helmet, which amounted to a
violation of traffic rules and thus was responsible for contributory
negligence. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the impugned
judgment and award be quashed and set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants opposes the
submissions made on behalf of the appellant-Corporation and
supports the impugned award, particularly with regard to the
finding of negligence on the part of the bus driver.
5.1 With regard to the appeal filed by the claimants, learned
counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in determining
the monthly income of the deceased on a notional basis at
Rs.4916/-, whereas, at the relevant point of time, the minimum
wages payable to an unskilled worker were Rs. 197/- per day.
5.2 Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal
has failed to make any addition towards future prospects in the
income of the deceased.
5.3 Learned counsel also submits that compensation under the
conventional heads, namely loss of estate and loss of consortium,
is required to be awarded in accordance with the principles laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:07:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:00:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15914] (4 of 7) [CMA-5690/2016]
680, and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu
Ram @Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record, including the impugned judgment
and award.
7. This Court finds that Durgesh Kumar (AW-2), an
eye-witness, stated before the learned Tribunal that the offending
vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and
hit the vehicle of the deceased. He further stated that he, along
with other persons, took the deceased to the hospital. The said
witness further stated that, considering the serious condition of
the deceased, he was referred to Jaipur, where he remained under
treatment for 7-8 days.
7.1 Similarly, another eye-witness, Rajesh Kumar (AW-3) also
stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the
driver of the offending vehicle. This witness also stated that the
deceased was wearing a helmet at the time of accident.
7.2 The appellant-Corporation failed to produce any eye-witness
in rebuttal to prove the negligence of the deceased. Moreover, it is
apparent that, after investigation, the police also filed the
charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., the
bus, under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC, finding the offence
proved against him.
7.3 Based on the aforesaid evidence, the learned Tribunal arrived
at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:07:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:00:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15914] (5 of 7) [CMA-5690/2016]
7.4 In so far as the contention regarding delay in lodging of the
FIR is concerned, it is pertinent to note that, in the instant matter,
the accident occurred on 23.02.2015, after which Mohan Lal was
admitted to the hospital for treatment. Upon his demise on
02.03.2015, the FIR was lodged on the very same day, i.e.,
02.03.2015. In these circumstances, it is obvious that from
23.02.2015 to 02.03.2015, the family members of the deceased
were engaged in his treatment; therefore, the learned Tribunal
was justified in holding that delay in lodging the FIR was not fatal
to the case of the claimants.
7.5 In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is based on the
factual matrix of the case and upon a proper appreciation of the
evidence led by the parties. The same does not suffer from any
legal infirmity.
7.6 As a result of above discussion, the appeal filed by the
appellant-Corporation (CMA No. 6043/2016) is hereby dismissed.
8. Coming to the appeal filed by the claimants, the learned
Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased by taking
the minimum wages at Rs. 189/- per day, whereas, undisputedly,
the minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker, as notified by
the State of Rajasthan for the relevant period of time, were
Rs.197/- per day. Therefore, the compensation towards loss of
dependency is required to be determined on the basis of minimum
wages of Rs.197/- per day.
8.1 Further, this court is in agreement with the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the claimants that the claimants
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:07:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:00:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15914] (6 of 7) [CMA-5690/2016]
are entitled to get compensation towards future prospects, loss of
estate and loss of consortium, in view of the guidelines laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu
Ram (supra).
8.2 Accordingly, the compensation payable to the claimants is re-
computed as under:-
S.No. Particular Amount assessed
1. Monthly Income Rs.197x30=5910
2. Annual Income Rs. 5910 x 12=Rs.70920/-
3. According to the age of the Rs.70920 x 13
deceased i.e. 46 years,
multiplier 13 to be applied = Rs.921960/-
4. As per dependency, 1/3 Rs.921960 - Rs.307320
income to be deduced for
personal expenses of the = Rs.614640/-
deceased (-)
5. Add 25% towards future Rs.614640 + Rs.153660
prospects (+) = Rs.768300/-
6. Total loss of Dependency Rs.768300/-
7. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000 x 3
(three dependants) = Rs.1,20,000/-
8. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
9. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
10. Medical Expenses Rs.183958/-
(as awarded by the Tribunal)
11. Transportation Expenses Rs.4,000/-
(as awarded by the Tribunal)
Total compensation Rs.11,06,258/-
(S.No. 6+7+8+9+10+11)
Less amount awarded by the Rs.8,14,170/-
Tribunal (-)
Enhanced amount of Rs. 2,92,088/-
compensation
9. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal is enhanced by a sum of Rs.2,92,088/-. The rest of the
impugned award shall remain intact. The respondent-Corporation
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:07:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:00:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15914] (7 of 7) [CMA-5690/2016]
is directed to deposit the enhanced amount before the learned
Tribunal within a period of two months from today.
10. It is directed that the enhanced amount shall carry interest
at the same rate as awarded 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.
11. The present appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
12. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
13. Office is directed to send back the record of the case to the
concerned Tribunal forthwith.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J
SKS/32-33
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:07:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:00:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
