Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 5 2025:CGHC:13248 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M A C No. 1159 of 202 0 1. Gambhir Sai S/o Shri Birjhuram Aged About 48 Years Caste Panika , Occupation Agriculturist , R/o Village Dharsedi, Police Station Odagi, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Vimla W/o Shri Gambhir Sai Aged About 40 Years Caste Panika , Occupation Housewife , R/o Village Dharsedi, Police Station Odagi, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants/ Claimants versus
Legal Reasoning
1. Devidayal Yadav S/o Shri Ramlal Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Dharsedi, Police Station Odagi, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Offending Vehicle Truck C.G. 16 CE 5930), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Jhabori Yadav S/o Rampyari Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Dharsedi, Police Station Odagi, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck C.G. 16 CE 5930), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office Business Sector Surajpur , Beside Kejriwal Complex , Infront of Ram Mandir , Main Road, Surajpur , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck C.G. 16 CE 5930), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate --- Respondents For Resp. No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Rakesh Manikpuri, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Adv. on behalf of Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 5 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 20/03/2025 1. Appellants, parents of deceased Kumkum, aged about 6 years, have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') challenging award dated 24.12.2019 passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur in Claim Case No.79/2019 awarding total compensation of Rs.3,95,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of application till realization. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 03.01.2019 at 4.30 p.m., Kumkum was going to the nearby grocery shop from her house and when she was standing on the side of the main road, driver of the motor cycle vehicle number- CG 16-CE 5930, non-applicant No. 1 Devidayal Yadav driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, caused accident to Kumkum, due to which she suffered serious injuries on her body. She was immediately taken to the Primary Health Center, Dharsedi, from where she was taken to the Health Center, Bhaiyathan for treatment and from there she was referred to the District Hospital, Surajpur and later admitted to Jeevan Jyoti Hospital Ambikapur, where she died during treatment on 04.01.2019. 3. 4. Claimants, who are parents of deceased, filed claim application before competent Claims Tribunal claiming an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation on account of death of late Kumkum due to injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicular accident. Non-applicant No.1 & 2, driver & owner of offending vehicle, submitted their joint reply to claim application, denying all adverse pleadings made in claim application. They have pleaded that on the date of accident, non- applicant No. 1/ Respondent No. 1 driver had valid licence and the 3 / 5 offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company and therefore liability, if any, for payment of amount of compensation would be on it. 5. Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company also submitted its reply to claim application denying all material facts and allegation levelled therein. It was further pleaded that offending vehicle was plied in breach of condition of insurance policy as on the date of accident non-applicant No.1-driver was not possessing valid and effective driving license and therefore insurance company is not liable to satisfy the impugned award. It was further pleaded that amount of compensation claimed by claimants is highly exaggerated. 6. The Claims Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, has held that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle in which deceased lost her life and accordingly awarded a total sum of Rs.3,95,000/- as compensation. 7. Relying on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kishan Gopal & anr v. Lala & ors reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 wherein compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- has been awarded in case of death of a child, it is submitted by learned counsel for appellants that compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal in the case at hand is not just and reasonable, it is on lower side and hence it is required to be enhanced. He further submits that amount awarded by Claims Tribunal under other heads is also on lower side and it requires to be enhanced appropriately. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned award and submitted that amount awarded by Claims Tribunal 4 / 5 is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court as the deceased was only 06 years old, dependent on her parents and was not an earning member. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. The only point which requires consideration of this Court is whether the Claims Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation to claimants or not? 11. In the matter of Kishan Gopal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering its earlier decision in the matter of Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197 awarded an amount of Rs.5 Lakh as compensation by assessing income of deceased on notional basis as Rs.30,000/- p.a. on the ground that the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994. In the matter of Lata Wadhwa (supra) it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that though in case of death of a child on account of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident, compensation could not be awarded by assessing income of child on notional basis and applying multiplier, but at the same time it is to be kept in mind that loss of a child cannot be equated in terms of money and therefore some reasonable amount of compensation should be awarded to the parents. Further, the parents would also be entitled for compensation towards loss of estate. 12. Similarly, in the case of Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204 considered the death of a 12 year child and reiterated and applied the ratio laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) has awarded a sum of Rs. 5 Lakh by adopting the income and multiplier as applied by the learned Claims Tribunal in that case. 5 / 5 13. In the case at hand, admittedly the death of child took place in the year 2019 and in between 1994 to 2019 the value of rupee has drastically come down, which is to be taken into consideration while awarding amount of compensation. This apart, claimants/appellants herein are also entitled for compensation under the heads of loss of love & affection and loss of consortium of child. 14. Considering overall facts and circumstances of case and law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kishan Gopal (supra) & Meena Devi (supra), in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be served if a lump sum amount Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded as compensation to claimants/appellants along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of application till its realization. 15. On the basis of above discussion, the claimants/appellants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Amount of compensation, if any paid, pursuant to the impugned award shall be deducted. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain as it is. 16.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge