Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.04.09 17:38:25 +0530 2025:CGHC:16747 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1085 of 2018 1. Amar Das Banjare S/o Hiralal Banjare Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Lutudih (Kesla) Post- Mudpar, Police Station Palari, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 2. Shital Banjare W/o Amardas Banjare Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Lutudih (Kesla) Post- Mudpar, Police Station Palari, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1. Amit Kshatri S/o Murli Kshatri Aged About 28 Years R/o Masjid Road Kota, Raipur, Police Station Sarswati Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Prakash Jagat S/o Ratiram Jagat Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Sarkari Kunwa, Kota Raipur, Police Station Sarswati Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Icici Lombard Insurance Company Limited Through- Branch Manager, Icici Lombard Insurance Company Limited, Adress- Chawla Complex, Commercial Building Rajendra Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents MAC No. 1218 of 2018 1. Amar Das Banjare S/o Hiralal Banjare Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Lutudih ( Kesla ) Post Mudpar, Police Station Palari, 2 District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 2. Shital Banjare W/o Amardas Banjare, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Lutudih ( Kesla ) Post Mudpar, Police Station Palari, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ---Appellants Versus 1. Amit Kshatri S/o Murli Kshatri Aged About 28 Years R/o Masjid Road Kota, Raipur, Police Station Sarswati Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Prakash Jagat S/o Ratiram Jagat Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Sarkari Kunwa Kota Raipur, Police Station Sarswati Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. I C I C I Lombard Insurance Company Limited , Through Branch Manager, I C I C Lombard Insurance Company Limited, Address Chawla Complex, Commercial Building Rajendra Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. For Respondent No.3 : C.R. Sahu, Advocate. Mr. Chitram Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Judgment on Board Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal 09 / 04 / 2025 1. Since both the appeals arise out of the common impugned award dated 04.05.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, District-Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 123/2017 and 124/2017, awarding compensation of Rs.3,05,000-3,05,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application, in favour of the 3 appellants/claimants. 2. In this case, the accident took place on 20.04.2017 at about 7:30 am, when respondent No.1 Amit Kshatri driving the offending vehicle i.e. Scorpio bearing registration No. CG-04-DM-1198 rashly and negligently hit Tushar & Sagar (now deceased) who were walking on the footpath from their home to Jora School for studies, due to which, they suffered grievous injuries and died. Upon report being made in this regard, crime was registered against respondent no.1 at Telibandha Police Station, Raipur(CG). 3. It was claimed that at the time of accident, deceased Sagar was aged around 10 years and deceased Tushar was aged around 12 years. Due to the casual death of deceased Sagar and Tushar, there is an irreparable loss to the claimants who are the parents of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.16,00,000-16,00,000/- in both the appeals. 4. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents brought on record awarded total compensation of Rs.3,05,000- 3,05,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal is for enhancement. 5. The main ground of challenge to the impugned award by the appellant/claimants is that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too meager considering the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the age of the deceased and the same deserves to be enhanced suitably. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the 4 compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a Bonanza. 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto alias Nemchand Mahto and Others reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204 wherein in a case of death of a minor child aged about 10 to 12 years, the Supreme Court relying its judgments in the cases of Kishan Gopal & Anr v. Lala & Ors, (2014) 1 SCC 244 and Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali and Anr v. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Anr, (2022) 1 SCC 317, in paragraphs – 14, 15, 16 & 18 held as under: “14. Recently in the case of Kurvan Ansari (supra), wherein a child aged about 7 years died in a road accident took place on 6.9.2004, this Court taking notional income as Rs. 25,000/-, applying the multiplier of 15, calculated the loss of dependency as Rs. 3,75,000/- and adding Rs. 55,000/- in conventional heads, awarded Rs. 4,70,000/-. 15. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the cases of child death, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- as specified in the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act has been enhanced on account of devaluation of money and value of rupee coming down from the date on which the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act was introduced and the said notional income was treated as Rs. 30,000/- in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) and Rs. 25,000/- in Kurvan Ansari (supra) in age group of 10 and 7 years respectively. 16. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments, looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the principles laid down in case of Kishan Gopal (supra) are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. As per the ocular statement of the mother of 5 the deceased, it is clear that deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning Rs. 30,000/- including future prospect and applying the multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- and if we add Rs. 50,000/- in conventional heads, then the total sum of compensation comes to Rs.5,00,000/-. As per the judgment of MACT, lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs. 2,00,000/- up to the value of the Claim Petition. In our view, the said amount of compensation is not just and reasonable looking to the computation made hereinabove. Hence, we determine the total compensation as Rs. 5,00,000/- and on reducing the amount as awarded by the High Court i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/-, the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 3,00,000/-. 18. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The amount of compensation, as awarded by the High Court is enhanced by Rs. 3,00,000/-, in addition. The total amount of compensation would be Rs. 5,00,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of Claim Petition till realization. The due amount be paid by the respondent No. 4 – United India Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from today.” 11. Applying the same principle and analogy in the present case also, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation payable to the claimants herein in similar terms and quantifies the compensation at Rs.4,50,000-4,50,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.50,000-50,000/- under the conventional head. Thus, the appellant/claimants in both the appeals shall be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000-5,00,000/- instead of Rs.3,05,000-3,05,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 12. The appeals thus stand allowed. The appellant/claimants shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs.1,95,000-1,95,000/- (5,00,000–3,05,000) in addition to what has already been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of 6 the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 13. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in these appeals as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants reside. Sourabh P. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge