Nafr High Court
Case Details
-1- REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH 2025:CGHC:16777 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 317 of 2021
Legal Reasoning
"38.In our considered view, the aforesaid legal principle laid down in Lata Wadhwa's case with all fours is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand having regard to the fact that the deceased was 10 years' old, who was assisting the appellants in their agricultural occupation which is an undisputed fact. We have also considered the fact that the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994, when the notional income of the non- earning member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs.15,000/-. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard. 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 the mother who was about 36 years old, at the time of accident, by applying the legal principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport corporation, (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 vs. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176, which is referred to in Lata Wadhwa's case 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. 40. The said amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. by applying the law laid down in the case of Municpal Council of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, (2011) 14 SCC 481, for the reason that the Insurance company has been contesting the claim of the -5- appellants from 1992-2013 without settling their legitimate claim for nearly about 21 years, if the Insurance company had awarded and paid just and reasonable compensation to the appellants the same could have been either invested or kept in the fixed deposit, then the amount could have earned five times more than what is awarded today in this appeal. Therefore, awarding (5 of 5) [CMA-278/2016] 9% interest on the compensation awarded in favour of the appellants is legally justified." 15) Taking into consideration the fact that the age of the deceased were 7 years and 11 years respectively at the time of the accident and the learned Tribunal applied the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Kishan Gopal (supra) and passed an award to the tune of Rs.5,25,000/- for each of the minor deceased, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Consequently, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha
Arguments
1 - Koushil Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Purshottam Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Amlikapa, Post Office- Amora, Police Station - Jarhagaon, Tahsil And Distt.- Mungeli (Chhattisgarh), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Lata Bai Sahu W/o Koushil Kumar Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Amlikapa, Post Office- Amora, Police Station - Jarhagaon, Tahsil And Distt.- Mungeli (Chhattisgarh), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Purnima Sahu D/o Koushil Kumar Sahu Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Shri Koushil Kumar Sahu, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village- Amlikapa, Post Office- Amora, Police Station - Jarhagaon, Tahsil And Distt.- Mungeli (Chhattisgarh), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Shivajeet Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Singh R/o Pali Road, Shahid Singh, Jyoti Nagar, Dipka, Tahsil And Distt.- Korba. At Present Mandir Chowk (Chowki Wrongly Mention In The Cause Title), Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration No. Cg C.G. 10 R 8070)., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Munna Singh S/o Shri Baliram Singh Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Driver, Main Address Village- Kawalpura, Police Station- Mashrak, Tahsil And Distt.- Chhapra (Bihar). At Present Gandhi Nagar Sirki, Police Station Dipka, Tahsil And Distt.- Korba (Chhattisgarh) (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration No. Cg C.G. 10 R 8070)., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Center, Near Rajeev Plaza, Near Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsil And Distt.- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (Insurer Of The Vehicle Bearing Registration No. Cg C.G. 10 R 8070)., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents -2- For Appellants/Claimants For respondent No.3/ Insurance Company : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.04.2025 1) Heard on I.A. No.1, an application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal. 2) Mr. Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that there is a delay of 803 days in filing the instant appeal. He would further submit that as two children of the claimants died in an accident, the mental status of the appellants was not sound and they could not approach their counsel for filing the instant appeal within limitation. He would pray to condone the delay. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Dewangan. 4) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 5) Taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Dewangan and the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 803 days caused in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. 6) Heard on admission. 7) The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal against the award dated 31.08.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Claim Case No.73/2016 for enhancement of -3- compensation. 8) The facts of the present case are that on 10.10.2016 in a motor accident, two children namely Harish Kumar Sahu and Kanha Sahu, aged about 7 and 11 years respectively died. 9) The claimants who are parents and sister of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs.15,50,000/- for the death of each of the children. The driver and owner were proceeded ex parte. The Insurance Company filed a reply and denied averments of the claim petition. The parties led evidence. 10) Learned Tribunal appreciating the evidence and documents passed an award to the tune of Rs.5,25,000/- for the death of each child along with the interest @ 9% from the date of the application till the date of realization and thus, awarded a total of Rs.10,50,000/-. 11)Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed an award at a lower side. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation on other heads. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 12) On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Dewangan. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation to the claimants. He would further submit that the age of one of the deceased was 7 years and another was 11 years. He would contend the learned Tribunal applied the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and -4- others reported in 2014 (1) SCC 244 and thus, he would pray that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 14) In the matter of Kishan Gopal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 38, 39 & 40 held as under:-