Sukhram and others v. Ravijeet and others). The
Case Details
1 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1172 of 2018 Order Reserved on 11.07.2025 Order Delivered on 23.07.2025 1 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh .. Appellant versus 1 - Sukhram Mastram Aged About 40 Years Cast Gond, Resident Village Salka, Tehsil Premnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rampatia Bai, W/o Sukhram, Aged About 38 Years Cast Gond, Resident Village Salka, Tehsil Premnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ravijeet Singh Chhabra, W/o Manjeet Singh Chhabra, Aged About 50 Years Agrasen Ward No. 38, Kundla City Ambikapur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Naseer Khan, W/o Mohammad Sahabuddin Khan, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Domhat(Pratappur) Thana Chandura, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :-
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate ... Respondents 2 For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anshul R. Shrivastava, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Order 1. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been filed by The New India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant/insurer'), being aggrieved by the final award dated March 6, 2018, passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) (Presiding Officer - Ku. Sangh Pushpa Bhatpahari) in Claim Case No. 67/2017, (Sukhram and others vs. Ravijeet and others). The appellant seeks to set aside or modify the impugned award on various grounds, including the erroneous assessment of dependency, income, future prospects, and consortium, the excessive interest awarded, and the non-joinder of necessary parties. 2. As per averments made in the claim petition, on May 14, 2017, at about 3:30 AM, minor Dilharan Singh (12 years old) and others were returning from a wedding in a Maruti Omni van and on way, it collided with a trailer bearing registration No. CG 15/A.C./4215 driven by Naseer Khan/respondent No.4 herein. The accident resulted in four deaths, including Dilharan Singh. His parents, Sukhram and Rampatia Bai, filed a claim petition under Section 3 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.23,30,000/-. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, has awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.10,78,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal by the Appellant/Insurance Company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) erroneously awarded compensation to the parents of the 12-year-old deceased minor, Dilharan Singh, on several grounds: firstly, that the parents (aged 40 and 38) were not dependents of the minor; secondly, the tribunal wrongly assumed the minor's income at Rs. 6,000/- per month without any documentary evidence; thirdly, the award of "future prospects" to a 12-year-old was incorrect; fourthly, the tribunal wrongly awarded "consortium" to the parents; fifthly, the interest rate of 9% yearly from the date of application was improperly granted; and finally, the entire claim petition should have been dismissed due to the non-impleading of the owner, insurance company, and driver of the Maruti van as necessary parties. Therefore, the appellant seeks to set aside the impugned award and be exonerated from payment of compensation, with an order for reimbursement of any amount already paid. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the Motor Accident’s Claims Tribunal’s award for the death of 4 minor Dilharan Singh is just and legal, emphasizing that compensation for a minor's death extends beyond strict financial dependency to cover the immense non-pecuniary loss to parents, as recognized by Indian legal precedents. They would argue that the notional income of Rs. 6,000/- per month for a 12-year-old is reasonable, reflecting future earning potential, and that awarding "future prospects" and "filial consortium" to parents for the loss of a child are established legal principles. Furthermore, the 9% interest rate is a standard compensation mechanism, and the non- impleading of the Maruti van's parties should not invalidate the rightful claim against the trailer's insurer, as the Motor Vehicles Act prioritizes victims' compensation over technicalities. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Admittedly, in this case, the deceased was a minor, approximately 12 years old, and it is undisputed that the claimants are the parents of the deceased child. A central question in this appeal is the dependency of major persons (parents) on a minor. While motor vehicle accident legislation is benevolent, Tribunals and Courts must adhere to basic principles to ensure a pragmatic and realistic computation of compensation. It's acknowledged that money cannot fully compensate for the loss of a life; however, an effort must be made to award just compensation with a uniform approach, striking a balance between excessive windfalls and inadequate pittances. Adjudicating such matters is challenging, 5 hence the endeavor to standardize computations, which now includes the addition of future prospects based on proven present income. 7. However, in the present matter, the deceased, being only about 12 years old, had no income. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the parents were financially dependent upon the minor deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto, (2023) 1 SCC 204 as also in the similar matters therein, has consistently held that in cases involving the death of a child, a lump sum of Rs.5 lakhs is to be awarded. As the deceased was a minor, it appears that the Tribunal erred in law when calculating compensation for the death of the minor. Specifically, in cases concerning minor deceased individuals who succumbed to injuries from an accident, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that Rs.5 lakhs is the appropriate amount, covering all heads of compensation. 8. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in matters such as Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 & National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 has clarified that dependency, future prospects, and consortium are outside the scope of computation for claim petitions involving a minor deceased. 6 9. Considering these aspects, this Court concludes that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in law by computing compensation based on dependency, future prospects, and consortium, which contravenes the established legal precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part. The claimants are entitled to get a sum of ₹5 lakhs on account of the death of their minor son, aged about 12 years. This amount will be paid along with interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition (July 20, 2017) until its realization, as previously directed in the award. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha