The Court relied on Income Tax Returns to assess income, preferred PAN card and driving licence over the post-mortem report for determining age, and held that the claimants could recover compensation from either insurer in a case of composite negligence.
Court Modifies MACT Award In 2011 Alwar-Bhiwadi Highway Accident Case
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has enhanced the compensation payable to the legal representatives of deceased Santosh Kumar Sharma by ₹15,93,435 in a motor accident claim.
Justice Sandeep Taneja delivered the judgment on May 6, 2026, in connected civil miscellaneous appeals arising from a common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa.
The Court had reserved the judgment on March 23, 2026.
Appeals Before The High Court
The appeals arose from the common judgment and award dated December 1, 2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, in MAC Case Nos. 167/2011, 240/2011, 242/2011, 243/2011 and 244/2011.
United India Insurance Company Limited filed S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 292/2016, 293/2016 and 294/2016.
Meanwhile, the legal representatives of deceased Santosh Kumar Sharma filed S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2823/2016 seeking enhancement of compensation.
Counsel Appearing In The Matter
Ms. Archana Mantri appeared for the appellant-insurance company.
The respondents were represented by Mr. Gunjan Pathak, Mr. Ritesh Jain with Dr. Ramdeo Arya, Mr. Ram Singh Bhati, Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal with Mr. Abhishek Paliwal, Mr. Rahul Sharma with Ms. Anjali Sharma for Mr. Mukesh Kumar Goyal, and Mr. Naman Gurjar for Mr. K.K. Bhinda.
Accident Took Place On Alwar-Bhiwadi Highway
The case arose from an accident that took place on January 7, 2011.
At around 3:00 AM, Jagdish Prasad, Santosh Kumar Sharma, Giriraj Prasad, Vinod Kumar and Lalit Kumar were travelling from Lalsot to Delhi in a Scorpio car bearing registration number RJ-25-UA-0453.
Near Jajor on the Alwar-Bhiwadi Highway, the car collided with a truck bearing registration number RJ-02-GA-0879.
Jagdish Prasad and Santosh Kumar Sharma died on the spot. Giriraj Prasad, Vinod Kumar and Lalit Kumar suffered grievous injuries.
FIR And Charge-Sheet
Lalit Kumar lodged the FIR at Police Station Sadar, Alwar.
After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet under Section 283 IPC against the truck driver.
The police also filed a charge-sheet under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC against the driver of the car.
The truck had insurance coverage from The New India Insurance Company, while the car had insurance coverage from United India Insurance Company Limited.
Tribunal Fixed Liability In 75:25 Ratio
The Tribunal found negligence on the part of both drivers.
It attributed 75% negligence to the driver of the car and 25% negligence to the driver of the truck.
Accordingly, the Tribunal apportioned liability between United India Insurance Company Limited and New India Insurance Company Limited in the ratio of 75:25.
Insurance Company Challenged The Award
United India Insurance Company challenged the award before the High Court.
It argued that the accident occurred in dense fog and that the truck driver alone caused the accident.
The insurer also submitted that the truck had been parked without any indicator, light, warning sign, stones or obstruction around it.
Further, it relied on the Supreme Court decision in Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole and Ors., AIR 2024 SC 4627.
High Court Examined FIR, Site Plan And Evidence
The High Court examined the FIR, site plan, claim pleadings and oral evidence.
The Court noted that the FIR contained the first version of the claimants and showed that the truck was standing on the roadside.
Similarly, the site plan indicated that the truck stood on the roadside.
The Court also noted that the claimants consistently stated that the car driver drove the vehicle at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner.
Injured Eyewitnesses Supported Finding Against Car Driver
The Court considered the evidence of injured eyewitnesses Giriraj Prasad (AW-2), Vinod Kumar Sharma (AW-3) and Lalit Kumar Sharma (AW-4).
The witnesses stated that they had cautioned the car driver after seeing the truck.
However, the driver failed to apply brakes in time.
Therefore, the Court held that the evidence established negligence on the part of the car driver.
Truck Driver Also Found Negligent
At the same time, the Court held that the truck driver also acted negligently.
The truck stood parked without warning signals, indicators or precautionary measures to alert oncoming traffic.
The Court observed that proper warning signs could have helped avoid the accident.
Supreme Court Judgment Distinguished
The High Court distinguished Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole.
It noted that, in Sushma, the Court had found that the truck had been abandoned in the middle of the road.
However, in the present case, the evidence showed that the truck stood on the roadside. The evidence also showed that the car driver drove rashly and negligently.
Accordingly, the High Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding of negligence in the ratio of 75:25 and dismissed the appeals filed by United India Insurance Company.
Claimants Sought Enhancement Of Compensation
The legal representatives of deceased Santosh Kumar Sharma sought enhancement of compensation.
They argued that the Tribunal wrongly assessed the deceased’s income on a notional basis at ₹5,000 per month.
They submitted that the deceased’s Income Tax Returns for Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 were already on record as Exhibits 22 to 24.
Court Accepted Income Tax Return
The claimants argued that the Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2010-11 reflected the highest income.
The gross income for that year stood at ₹1,75,110.
After deducting income tax of ₹715, the annual income came to ₹1,74,395.
The High Court accepted this submission.
Court Relied On Supreme Court Precedents
The Court relied on Nidhi Bhargava & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 872.
It also relied on Malarvizhi & Ors. v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr., (2020) 4 SCC 228.
The Court held that Income Tax Returns serve as statutory and reliable documents for assessing income.
Consequently, it fixed the deceased’s annual income at ₹1,74,395.
PAN Card And Driving Licence Used To Determine Age
The claimants also challenged the Tribunal’s finding that the deceased was 48 years old.
They relied on the deceased’s Driving Licence, marked as Exhibit 25, and PAN Card, marked as Exhibit 26.
Both documents recorded his date of birth as 08.11.1969.
On that basis, the Court held that the deceased was 41 years old at the time of the accident.
Post-Mortem Report Not Preferred For Age
The Court held that a post-mortem report primarily helps ascertain injuries and cause of death.
It noted that the age mentioned in a post-mortem report comes from anatomical examination and remains only an estimate.
On the other hand, PAN card and driving licence carry greater reliability because government agencies issue them.
Therefore, the Court preferred those documents for determining the age of the deceased.
Future Prospects And Consortium
Since the deceased was 41 years old, the Court added 25% towards future prospects.
The Court also held that each claimant was entitled to ₹40,000 towards loss of consortium.
For this finding, the Court relied on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company v. Nanuram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130.
Court Explains Composite Negligence
The claimants also argued that the insurance companies should bear joint and several liability.
The Court referred to T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan and Ors., 2008 (3) SCC 748.
It held that when two or more wrongdoers cause death or injury, and the deceased or injured person does not contribute to the negligence, the case becomes one of composite negligence.
In such cases, each wrongdoer remains jointly and severally liable.
Claimants Can Recover Compensation From Either Insurer
The Court noted that the claimants were the legal representatives of the deceased.
None of them drove either vehicle. Therefore, the deceased did not contribute to the accident.
Accordingly, the Court held that despite apportionment of liability between the insurance companies, the claimants could recover compensation from any of them.
The High Court reassessed the compensation as follows:
| Particulars | Amount |
|---|---|
| Annual income | ₹1,74,395 |
| Multiplier of 14 applied | ₹24,41,530 |
| 25% future prospects | ₹6,10,383 |
| Total after future prospects | ₹30,51,913 |
| Deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses | ₹7,62,978 |
| Loss of dependency | ₹22,88,935 |
| Loss of consortium for four dependants | ₹1,60,000 |
| Loss of estate | ₹15,000 |
| Funeral expenses | ₹15,000 |
| Total compensation | ₹24,78,935 |
| Less amount awarded by Tribunal | ₹8,85,500 |
| Enhanced compensation | ₹15,93,435 |
Final Directions
The High Court enhanced the compensation by ₹15,93,435.
It directed the insurance companies to deposit the enhanced amount within two months.
The enhanced amount will carry interest in terms of the Tribunal’s award from the date of filing of the claim petition.
The Court further directed that the amount be disbursed as per the Tribunal’s award.
Accordingly, the High Court modified the impugned award to this extent and partly allowed the enhancement appeal.
