Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2025:CGHC:13884 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 81 of 2021 1. Narayan Dutta S/o Makhan Dutta, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village P.V. 59, Yashwant Nagar Thana And Tehsil Pakhanjur, District Uttar Baster Kanker (Chhattisgarh)
Legal Reasoning
“39. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would be just and reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs.30,000 and further taking the young age of the parents, namely, mother who was about 36 years old, at the time of accident, by applying the legal principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand. Thus, 30,000 x 15 = 4,50,000 and 50,000 under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites as held in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176, which is referred to in Lata Wadhwa case, (2001) 8 SCC 197 and the said amount under the conventional heads is awarded even in relation to the death of children between 10 to 15 years old. In this case also we award Rs.50,000 under conventional heads. In our view, for the aforesaid reasons the said amount would be fair, just and reasonable compensation to be awarded in favour of the appellants.” 8. In Meena Devi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-10 held as under:- “10. Thus relying upon the observation, it is said that in place of issuing any guidelines for determination of compensation in case of death of a child, it may be left open to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case of M.S. Grewal (supra), 14 school students died due to drowning in a river. This Court noticing that the students were belonging to upper middle class background, however awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. Thereafter in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra), a child aged about 10 years died in a road accident took place on 19.7.1992, this Court made departure from the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act and accepted the notional income of Rs.30,000/- in place of Rs.15,000/- applying the analogy that the value of rupee has come down drastically since 1994 when the notional income of Rs.15000/- was fixed in IInd Schedule of the MV Act. However accepting the notional income as Rs.30,000/- and as per the age of the parents i.e. 36 years, the loss of dependency was calculated applying the 4 multiplier of 15 at Rs.4,50,000 and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded under conventional heads awarding a total sum of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-” 9. Admittedly, in the present appeal, the age of the deceased was 03 years and the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/-, whereas the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Kishan Gopal (supra) and Meena Devi (supra) has held that in the case of the death of the child below the age of 12 years, proper compensation would be Rs.5,00,000/-. 10. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Kishan Gopal (supra) and Meena Devi (supra), I am inclined to enhance the compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to receive an additional compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Respondent No. 2 shall make payment of compensation within a period of 60 days. However, the rest of the conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact.
Arguments
2. Smt. Sushma Dutta W/o Narayan Dutta, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village P.V. 59, Yashwant Nagar Thana And Tehsil Pakhanjur, District Uttar Baster Kanker (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellants Versus 1. Uttam Kumar Mandal S/o Kamal Mandal Aged About 53 Years R/o Village P.V. 89, Thana And Tehsil Pakhanjur, District Uttar Baster Kanker (Chhattisgarh).................Owner/driver 2. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Akashvani Road, M.P. Baster Jagdalpur, Nayapara, District Tower First (Chhattisgarh).............Insurer Floor, For Appellants For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2 : : : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate Mohd. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate ... Respondents Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 22/03/2025 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation against the award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Baster, Kanker in Claim Case No. 32/2019 dated 02.03.2020. 2. Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the 2 appellants/claimants would submit that the driver/owner of the offending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No. CG-17 C 1720 dashed the deceased namely, Disha Dutta, aged about 03 years and 06 months on 19.05.2018, driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently. She would contend that the claimants, who are parents (mother and father) of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,03,000/-. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal after considering the evidence, passed an award to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- only with interest @ 08% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim case. She has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kishan Gopal and Another Vs. Lala and Others, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 and the matter of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto alias Nemchand Mahato, reported in AIR Online 2022 SC 532. 3. On the other hand, Mohd. Azad Siddiqui and Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. 4. Mohd. Azad Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/Insurance Company would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. He would contend that the age of the deceased was 03 years and 06 months and compensation cannot be calculated according to Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act. He would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/driver/owner would support the contention made by Mohd. Siddiqui. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available 3 on the record. 7. In Kishan Gopal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-39 held as under:-
Decision
11. As a result, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti