1 2025:CGHC:37298 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 328 of 2021 1 - Smt. Urvershi W/o Shri Bhagwat Koushik Aged About 40 Years 2 - Bhagwat Koushik S/o Shri Naval Koushik (Koushikal Wrongly Mentioned In The Cause Title), R/o Village Bamhani, Police Station And Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Anil Kumar Agrawal S/o Mahaveer Agrawal Through Rameshchandra Agrawal , G.E. Road Charoda, Bhilai, District Durg At Present Kawardha, Road Gandai, Police Station Gandai, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C.G. 07 N A 3400). 2 - Yeshwant @ Ajay Diwakar S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Rapa, Police Station Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration No,. C.G. 07 N A 3400). 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office In Side Of Lic Office, Near Railway Station, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C.G. 07 N A 3400). ….Respondents For Appellants : None present. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 31/07/2025 1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking 2 enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (Kawardha), District – Kabirdham (Kawardha) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 09.02.2016 passed in Claim Case No.05/2015 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.2,30,000/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.12,20,000/- under different heads against the death of Ku. Bindiya Kaushik, who died in the road accident, pleading therein that on 22.07.2014, at about 6:00 p.m., Bindiya Kaushik was standing in the courtyard in front of her house along with Hemlata and Hempushpa. At that time, a Tata Indica car bearing registration number CG-07-NA-3400 (offending car), being driven by Non-Applicant No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner, came towards Lohara side, veered off the road, entered in to the house premises, and collided with a Neem tree after hitting Bindiya Kaushik. As a result, she suffered grievous injuries to her hand, leg, head, and other parts of her body. She later succumbed to these injuries during course of treatment. It was also pleaded by the claimants that deceased was their only daughter who was aged about 16 years and was running grocery shop and was earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.18,000/- per month. The claimants were dependent upon her and due to her untimely death they are facing great financial crises. 3. Non-applicant No.2 filed reply denying the pleadings made in the application. It was pleaded that offending vehicle has been falsely 3 implicated in this case and no accident occurred from the offending vehicle. At the time of accident, non-applicant No.2 was having valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.3. Non-applicant No.3 also filed reply denying the averments made in the application. It was pleaded that the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- and fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3/ Insurance Company to indemnify the insured. 5. Non-appeared on behalf of the appellant even when the case is taken up for hearing in the second round and therefore, keeping in mind interest of claimants, appeal is heard finally in absence of counsel on behalf of appellant. 6. Perusal of the memo of appeal would show that appellants have raised ground that at the time of accident, deceased Bindiya was running grocery shop and earning Rs.18,000/- per month, however, learned Claims Tribunal awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- overlooking the pleading and the evidence brought on record by the claimants. Deceased was minor aged about 16 years, therefore, Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed income of the deceased taking note of the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority, adding future prospects and applying the multiplier method. The Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded proper and suitable 4 compensation towards other convention head i.e. loss of estate, funeral expenses and for loss of consortium. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts of the case, which does not call for any interference 8. This appeal is filed by claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal of Rs.2,30,000/- to the unfortunate parents of the deceased Bindiya Kaushi, aged about 16 years. 9. The accident, death of Bindiya Kaushik due to the motor accidental injuries suffered by her and the insurance of the offending vehicle with the non-applicant No.3 as also the fastening of the liability upon upon non-applicants No.1 to 3 jointly and severally are not in dispute. 10. There is no dispute with regard to the facts of the case, the only grounds raised in this appeal is with regard to computation of compensation for death of deceased aged about 16 years. In case of Kishan Gopal Vs. Lala & Ors, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244, Hon’ble Supreme Court keeping in mind the significant depreciation in the value of money, has decided to assess the income of a minor or school-going child at Rs. 30,000 per annum for a death of a child aged about 10 years due to motor accidental injuries on 19.07.1992. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Master Ayush Vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd and another, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 738, Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a decision to assess the income of child less than 8 years on notional 5 basis taking note of the minimum wages prevailing on the date of accident. The trend have now been shifted from assessing the fixed income of minor child to assess the income notionally taking help of the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act prevailing on the date of accident. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Karuna Parmar Vs. Prakash Sinha & Others, in SLP (C) No. 6428 of 2023 and SLP (C) No. 6314 of 2023 decided on 11.02.2025, while taking note of the decision in case of Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692, has observed in para 14, which is as under :- “Deceased Child 14. Coming to the case of the deceased child, we are not inclined to accept the reasoning of the Tribunal on the yearly income. Recently, in Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another 2024 SCC Online SC 3692, J. B.R. Gavai, writing for the bench, has elaborated that: “29. This Court in the case of Kajal (supra) has held that taking notional income is not the correct approach. Instead, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in the concerned State has to be taken into consideration because, that would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. In this case, the minimum wage payable to a skilled workman in the State of Delhi at the time of the accident, i.e., 2nd June 2009, was Rs. 4,358/- per month.” (Emphasis supplied) 6 13. Reverting back to the case at hand, the date of accident is 22.07.2014, therefore, taking support from the aforementioned decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased aged about 16 years as Rs.5,468/- per month i.e. minimum wages fixed by the competent under the Minimum Wages Act for unskilled labour for relevant period. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Further there shall be addition of 40% towards future prospects in the assessed income. The deceased was minor aged about 16 years, therefore, there shall be deduction of 1/2 and application of multiplier of 18 for the purpose of computation of loss suffered by the claimants on account of the death of their minor child. The claimants shall further be entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards the loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. The aforementioned amount under the other conventional heads, is to be increased by 10% as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Therefore, the amount as mentioned under the head of loss of estate, funeral expenses and for loss of consortium would be 16,500/-, 16,500/-, 44,000/- and 44,000/- respectively. It is ordered accordingly. 15. On the basis of above, compensation awarded needs recomputation, which is as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 5,468 x 12 = 65,616.00 2. Addition of 40% towards future prospects : 65,616.00 + 26,246.00 = 91,862.00 3. 1/2 deduction towards personal : 91,862.00 – 45,931.00 = 45,931.00 7 expenses 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 18 : 45,931 x 18 = 8,26,758.00 5. For loss of consortium to the appellants Rs.44,000/- each (44,000 x 2) : 88,000.00 6. For funeral expenses : 16,500.00 7. For loss of estate : 16,500.00 Grand Total : 9,47,758.00 16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,47,758.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram