The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, while deciding a batch of connected motor accident appeals arising out of a tragic highway collision, laid down important principles concerning apportionment of negligence between vehicles, the correct methodology for income assessment of deceased persons, determination of age for compensation purposes, individual entitlement to consortium compensation, and the joint and several liability of insurers in cases of composite negligence.
The Court firmly held that where the FIR lodged immediately after the accident, the site plan prepared by the police, the pleadings in the claim petitions, and the testimony of eyewitnesses — all consistently establish that the car was being driven at a high speed rashly and negligently — such overwhelming and consistent evidence cannot be displaced merely by contending that the stationary truck was parked without warning signals. The Court noted that even the claimants’ own witnesses admitted during cross-examination that they could see the truck from a considerable distance and cautioned the driver to apply brakes, which the driver failed to do. The Tribunal’s apportionment of 75% negligence to the car driver and 25% to the truck driver was accordingly upheld, and the appeals filed by United India Insurance Company were dismissed.
On the question of the truck’s position, the Court distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole (AIR 2024 SC 4627), observing that in that case there was a concurrent finding that the truck was abandoned in the middle of the road, whereas here the FIR and the site plan clearly established that the truck was parked on the roadside. The truck driver’s negligence, however, was not altogether absolved — the Court held that parking without any warning signal, indicator, or precautionary measure in conditions of dense fog also contributed to the accident.
On the determination of income for computing loss of dependency, the Court held that Income Tax Returns filed by the deceased are legally admissible statutory documents and must be preferred over a notional income assessment. Where ITRs for multiple years are available, the return reflecting the highest income should be adopted as the basis. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Malarvizhi v. United India Insurance Company (2020) 4 SCC 228, Nidhi Bhargava v. National Insurance Company (2025 SCC OnLine SC 872), and S. Vishnu Ganga v. Oriental Insurance Company (2025 SCC OnLine SC 182), the Court adopted the ITR for assessment year 2010–11 declaring an annual income of Rs. 1,74,395/- for calculating the compensation, setting aside the Tribunal’s notional assessment of Rs. 5,000/- per month.
The Court further corrected the Tribunal’s determination of the age of the deceased, which had been pegged at 48 years based on the post-mortem report. The High Court held that the post-mortem report only provides an anatomical estimate of age and cannot be treated as a reliable document for this purpose. Government-issued documents such as the Driving Licence and PAN Card, both reflecting the date of birth as November 8, 1969, carry a far higher degree of reliability. Accordingly, the age of the deceased was corrected to 41 years, a multiplier of 14 was applied, and a 25% addition was made towards future prospects.
On the issue of loss of consortium, the Court held, following the Supreme Court’s settled position in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company v. Nanuram (2018) 18 SCC 130, that each dependent claimant is individually entitled to Rs. 40,000/- as loss of consortium and not a consolidated lump sum for all claimants together. The Court also clarified the legal position on composite negligence by relying on T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan (2008) 3 SCC 748, holding that since the deceased himself was not negligent, both insurers are jointly and severally liable and the claimants are free to recover the entire compensation from either insurer, irrespective of the apportionment ratio fixed between them.
As a consequence of the above findings, the total compensation payable to the claimants was re-assessed at Rs. 24,78,935/-, resulting in an enhancement of Rs. 15,93,435/- over the amount originally awarded by the Tribunal. The insurance companies were directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months, with interest running from the date of filing of the claim petition at the rate specified in the Tribunal’s award.
Case Details:
United India Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Mamta Sharma & Ors.
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 292, 293, 294 & 2823 of 2016
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur
Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:18711]
Decided by: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Taneja
Date of Pronouncement: May 6, 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 