2 - Priti W/o Tikaram Mirjha, Aged About 29 Years Both are R/o Village v. 1 - Rupesh Kumar S/o Budhram Markandey, R/o Village Dhekuna
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34540 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1 - Tikaram Mirjha S/o Chedilal Mirjha, Aged About 30 Years MAC No. 710 of 2020 2 - Priti W/o Tikaram Mirjha, Aged About 29 Years Both are R/o Village Tikuliya, P.O. Tarenga, P.S. Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. versus 1 - Rupesh Kumar S/o Budhram Markandey, R/o Village Dhekuna (Deepak Kirana Stores) P.O. Vishrampur, P.S. Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) (Driver Of Bullet Motor Cycle No. C.G.-04 L.G- 3041) --- Appellants 2 - Vikash S/o Chandrashekhar Pal, R/o Vishrampur, P.O. Vishrampur, P.S. Simga, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Bullet Motor Cycle No. C.G.-04 L.G- 3041) 3 - The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Divisional Manager (Division No. 1), The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Kachahari Chowk, Raipur, Tah. And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.(Insurer Of Bullet Motor Cycle No. C.G.-04 L.G- 3041). ….Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate with Mr. Satyendra Shrivas, Advocate For Respondent No.1
Legal Reasoning
7 SCC 256 and the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Ram Kumar Kumbhakar Vs. Ganga Ram Bharadwaj, in MAC No 519 of 2015, decided on 16.03.2021. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the facts of the case, the only grounds raised in this appeal is with regard to computation of compensation for death of child aged about 9 years. In case of Kishan Gopal (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court keeping in mind the significant depreciation in the value of money, has decided to assess the income of a minor or school-going child at Rs. 30,000 per annum. 8. Thereafter, in case of Rekha Jain & Anr vs National Insurance Co.Ltd, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 389 and in case of Master Ayush Vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd and another, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 738, Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a decision to assess the income of the child less than 8 years on notional basis taking note of the minimum wages prevailing on the date of accident. The trend have now been shifted from assessing the fixed income of minor child to assess the income notionally taking help of the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act prevailing on the date of accident. 5 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Karuna Parmar (supra) while taking note of the decision in case of Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692, has observed in para 14, which is as under :- “Deceased Child 14. Coming to the case of the deceased child, we are not inclined to accept the reasoning of the Tribunal on the yearly income. Recently, in Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another 2024 SCC Online SC 3692, J. B.R. Gavai, writing for the bench, has elaborated that: “29. This Court in the case of Kajal (supra) has held that taking notional income is not the correct approach. Instead, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in the concerned State has to be taken into consideration because, that would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. In this case, the minimum wage payable to a skilled workman in the State of Delhi at the time of the accident, i.e., 2nd June 2009, was Rs. 4,358/- per month.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. As the date of accident is 19.03.2017, therefore, taking support from the aforementioned decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I find it appropriate to assess income of the deceased aged about 9 years as Rs.6,206/- per month i.e. minimum wages fixed by the competent under the Minimum Wages Act for unskilled labour for relevant period. It is ordered accordingly. 11. Further there shall be addition of 40% towards future prospects in the 6 assessed income. The deceased was minor child, therefore, there shall be deduction of 1/2 and application of multiplier of 18 for the purpose of computation of loss suffered by the claimants on account of the death of their minor child. The claimants shall further be entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards the loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. The aforementioned amount under other conventional heads, shall be enhanced @ 20% as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Therefore, the amount as mentioned under the head of loss of estate, funeral expenses and for loss of consortium would be 18,000/-, 18,000/-, 48,000/- and 48,000/- respectively. It is ordered accordingly. 12. On the basis of above, compensation awarded needs recomputation, which is as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 6,206 x 12 = 74,472.00 2. Addition of 40% towards future : 74,472.00 + 29,788.00 = 1,04,260.00 prospects 3. 1/2 deduction towards personal : 1,04,260.00 – 52,130.00 = 52,130.00 expenses 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 18 5. For loss of consortium to the appellants Rs.48,000/- each (48,000 x 2) : 52,130 x 18 = 9,38,340.00 : 96,000.00 6. For funeral expenses 7. For loss of estate Grand Total : : : 18,000.00 18,000.00 10,70,340.00 13.
Arguments
: Mr. S.P. Sannat, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.05 10:48:16 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 21/07/2025 2 1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, District – Balodabazar – Bhatapara (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 06.05.2019 passed in Claim Case No.H-29/2017 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3/ Insurance Company to indemnify the insured. 3. This appeal is filed by claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal of Rs.2,00,000/- to the unfortunate parents of the deceased Digesh Mirza, aged about 9 years. The accident, death of Digesh Mirza due to motor accidental injuries suffered by him and the insurance of the offending vehicle with the Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company as also the fastening of the liability upon non-applicant No.1 to 3 jointly and severally is not in dispute. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the offending vehicle being insured on the date of accident, first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon non-applicant No.3/ Insurance Company is not disputed by the counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company. In the 3 aforementioned facts of the case this Court is not going into the facts of the case discussing the manner in which the accident occurred as pleaded by the claimants in their pleadings and also adverted by the learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned award but only considering the prayer made by learned counsel for appellants in this case seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the motor vehicle accident, son of claimants/appellants, Digesh Mirza aged about 9 years died. Learned Claims Tribunal awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, which is much less than what claimants are entitled for. He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kishan Gopal Vs. Lala & Ors, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 has awarded Rs.5,00,000/- to the claimants in case of death of child aged about 10 years. It is further argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Karuna Parmar Vs. Prakash Sinha & Others, in SLP (C) No. 6428 of 2023 and SLP (C) No. 6314 of 2023 decided on 11.02.2025 had considered the income of deceased child aged about 6 years on notional basis, computed the amount of compensation assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.6,690/- per month, added future prospects, applied multiplier of 18, in the accident which occurred on 2014. It is also contended that claimants would also be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of consortium, loss of estate and for funeral expenses. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is 4 just and proper in the facts of the case. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision in case of Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Others, reported in (2020)
Decision
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be 7 entitled for total compensation of Rs.10,70,340.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram