Rajasthan High Court
CMA/1108/2025 of MOSAMI W/O BHAGCHAND Vs DASHRATH SINGH S/O MADAN SINGH on 16 April 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1108/2025 1. Mosami W/o Bhagchand, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Kushalpura Tehsil Dooni, District Tonk (Rajasthan) 2. Mahaveer Prashad S/o Nanulal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Kushalpura Tehsil Dooni, District Tonk (Rajasthan)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1108/2025
1.
Mosami W/o Bhagchand, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Kushalpura Tehsil Dooni, District Tonk (Rajasthan)
2.
Mahaveer Prashad S/o Nanulal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Kushalpura Tehsil Dooni, District Tonk (Rajasthan)
3.
Foranta Devi W/o Mahaveer Prashad, Aged About 42 Years, R/
o Kushalpura Tehsil Dooni, District Tonk (Rajasthan)
4.
Madhu Kumari D/o Mahaveer Prashad, Aged About 17 Years, Through Natural Guardian Father Mahaveer Prashad S/o Nanulal, R/o Kushalpura Tehsil Dooni, District Tonk (Rajasthan)
5.
Meena Kumari D/o Mahaveer Prashad, Aged About 15 Years, Through Natural Guardian Father Mahaveer Prashad S/o Nanulal, R/o Kushalpura Tehsil Dooni, District Tonk (Rajasthan)
----Appellants
Versus
1.
Dashrath Singh S/o Madan Singh, R/o Village Panwad, Tehsil Devli, District Tonk (Vehicle Driver And Owner Maruti Van No.
Rj-06-Ub-2678)
2.
United India Insurance Company Limited, Office Nijam Bidi Factory, Subhash Bazar, Tonk
----Respondents
For Appellant(s)
:
Mr. Ram Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)
:
Ms. Jyoti Khanna
Ms. Shreya Khandal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
16/04/2026
1. This appeal has been filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded, vide judgment and award dated 19.11.2024, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk (for short ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.606/2023, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants (for short ‘claimants’) was partly allowed and a total compensation to the tune of Rs.20,23,140/- was awarded in favour of the claimants, along with interest @ 7% per annum.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
(2 of 3) [CMA-1108/2025]
3. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that on 08.03.2023, at 7 PM, Bhagchand (since deceased) was going from his village to Deoli on motorcycle and when he reached near Gopalpura, a Maruti Van bearing registration No.RJ06-UB-2678, being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the Motorcycle from behind. As a result of such accident, Bhagchand sustained grievous injuries and later on he died. Thereafter, a claim petition was filed by the claimants, which was partly allowed by the learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment and award. 3.1 Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the sole grievance of the claimants is that the learned Tribunal has erred in not granting compensation under the head of loss of consortium to each of the claimants. He also submits that in the instant case, the accident took place in March 2023, hence, an increment @ 10% should also be made in the amount of compensation towards the said head. He, therefore, prays that compensation of Rs.44,000/ should be awarded to each of the claimants separately, for the loss of consortium. 3.2 Learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
(i) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
(ii) Magma General Insurance Company Vs. Nanuram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the claimants and submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable, therefore, no interference is required by this Court.
(3 of 3) [CMA-1108/2025]
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimants that each of the claimants is entitled to get compensation under the head of loss of consortium. 5.1 Further, as the incident in the present matter is of March 2023, therefore, an increment @10% shall also be made in the compensation awarded towards loss of consortium in light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). 5.2 Accordingly, each of the five claimants is entitled to the compensation of Rs. 44,000/- separately, towards loss of consortium. As there are five dependents-claimants, the total amount under the head of loss of consortium would be Rs.2,20,000/- (Rs.44,000/- X 5), however, the learned Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.48,000/- only, under the said head. 5.3 Consequently, the compensation towards loss of consortium is enhanced by Rs.1,72,000/- (Rs.2,20,000/- – Rs.48,000/-).
6. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from today. The rest of the impugned award shall remain intact.
7. 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 till the recovery. The amount shall be disbursed in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal.
8. The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
9. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J RAVI KHANDELWAL /48