Bhikan v. Manjoor Ahemad Abdullah Shaikh, Age: 40, Occu.: Driver

HDFC-ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered office at Aurangabad, Branch Office at Nirala Bazar, Nageshwar Wadi, Aurangabad. ... Advocate for Appellants : Mr. A.D. Sonar Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. M.R. Deshmukh ... ..Respondents CORAM : S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : APRIL 30, 2025 ORDER :

#1. Present appeal takes exception to judgment and award dated 28.11.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amalner, District Jalgaon in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 106 of 2017 to the extent of assessment of compensation. 57-fa-1897-2024.odt (2) Appellants/original claimants seeks enhancement of compensation by way of present appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,

#1988. (Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original status).

#2. The appellants/claimants instituted Motor Accident Claim Petition No.106 of 2017 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amalner contending that on 17.09.2017, their son namely Atul Bhikan Patil was proceeding on his bicycle which was dashed by Eicher truck bearing Registration No.MH-48-AG-6847. Due to impact of accident, late Atul suffered fatal injuries. The incident was reported to police station. Consequently, offence was registered against truck driver. It is further contention of claimants that late Atul was aged about 14 years at the time of accident. He was taking education in school in Village Dangre, Taluka Amalner. Accordingly, they raised claim for compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- from owner, driver and insurer of offending vehicle.

#3. The Tribunal after considering rival submissions accepted case of claimants that accident occurred due to sole negligence on part of driver of offending vehicle and assessed compensation of Rs.3,40,000/-, eventually passed an award against respondents.

#4. Mr. Sonar, learned advocate appearing for appellants submits that the Tribunal is under obligation to determine just compensation in terms of Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act. According to him, claimants have lost their son aged about 14 years. 57-fa-1897-2024.odt (3) The compensation as assessed by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. Relying upon the observations in the case of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto alias Nemchand Mahto and Others1, he submits that minimum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- ought to have been awarded along with compensation towards non-pecuniary heads as approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would therefore urge to enhance the compensation by appropriately modifying the award.

#5. Mr. Deshmukh, learned advocate appearing for respondent/insurance company would submit that determination of compensation depends upon various factors. In present case, accident occurred in the year 2017. Late Atul was taking education in school at Village Amalner. No specific material as to his mental and physical capability is brought on record. The Tribunal exercised discretion after referring to law laid down by this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in various judgments. Therefore, he urges that there is no case for interference in the award of the Tribunal.

#6. Determination of compensation in case of child death depends upon multiple factors. In case of R.K. Malik and Anr Vs. Kiran Pal and Ors2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that Second Schedule under Motor Vehicle Act would be guide for determination of compensation and also observed that multiplier method can be applied. In case of Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar3, the 1 2 3 ORDER (i) First Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The appellants/claimants are held entitled to total compensation of Rs.5,60,000/- from respondents along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of institution of claim petition. (iii) Compensation amount already paid/disbursed in pursuance to award passed by Tribunal shall be appropriated. (iv) Modified award be drawn on payment of deficit Court fees, if any. (v) First Appeal stands disposed of. (S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) Mujaheed//