1 2025:CGHC:19831 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 890 of 2020 1 - Rambharosh Jatwar Son Of Jailal Jatwar Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Darri Road, Labour Colony Darri, Ward No. 44, Police Station Darri, Tahsil Katghora,District-Korba,Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Satrupa Jatwar Wife Of Rambharosh Jatwar Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Darri Road, Labour Colony Darri, Ward No. 44, Police Station Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Kaleshwar Yadav Son Of Sahash Ram Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Padimar, Bhadrapara, Balco Nagar, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Tilak Ram Son Of Gopalla R/o Village Tuman, Police Station Urga, Tahsil Kartala,District-Korba,Chhattisgarh. 3 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Sahar, Branch Office Commercial Complex, Block D, T.P. Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. M. Asha, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 01/05/2025 1. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased, who was aged about 15 years, as Rs.30,000/- per annum. He next contended that learned NISHA DUBEY Digitally signed by NISHA DUBEY 2 Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation under all other conventional heads. Liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon respondent No.3, hence, service of notice upon respondents No.1 & 2 be dispensed with. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits 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. She does not dispute the submission made by counsel for appellants with respect to liability upon respondent No.3/Insurance Company to satisfy the amount of compensation. 3. Considering the submission of counsel for respective parties, service of notice upon respondent No.1 & 2 is dispensed with. 4. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 5. This appeal is filed by claimants-appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded vide award dated 07.02.2020 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Katghora, District – Korba (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in MACT No.82/2018 whereby, the learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application in part and awarded a sum of Rs. 5,60,000/- against the death of a child aged about 15 years. 6. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 07.04.2018 at about 10.30 a.m., Sunil Kumar @ Vicky had gone from his residence to Gevraghat for bathing, when the driver of tractor bearing registration No.CG-12 AS/0259, non-applicant No.1, while driving his vehicle rashly and negligently, overturned the engine on Sunil Kumar @ Vicky, due to 3 which he came under the engine and drowned in the water along with the tractor engine and died on spot. 7. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal had erroneously taken the income of the deceased child notionally as Rs. 30,000/- per year and computed the amount of compensation by applying multiplier of 15, which in the facts and circumstances of the case is erroneous. Learned Claims Tribunal has overlooked the date of accident which is 07.04.2018 and considering the date of accident, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken notional income of the deceased higher than that of taken. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 10. The death of a child aged about 15 years in a road accident is not in dispute. Respondent No. 3 is insurer of the ill-fated vehicle and liability fastened upon the Respondent No. 3 is also not in dispute. 11. In case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. Vs. Lala & Ors. reported in 2014 (1) SCC 244 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referring to its earlier decisions, has considered as to what would be just amount of compensation to be awarded to family members of deceased child, who was in between age group of 7 to 10 years and died in a motor vehicular accident, and laid down the principles for awarding the amount of compensation in case of death of a minor child. 12.Learned Claims Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased who died in a motor accident as 12-13 years and applying the ratio laid 4 down in case of Kishan Gopal (Supra), assessed income of deceased on notional basis as Rs. 30,000/- per year and by applying multiplier of 15 as also adding Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses and Rs.80,000/- towards loss of filial consortium being the mother and father of the deceased, has computed the amount of compensation as Rs.5,60,000/- and awarded the same as compensation to the appellants/claimants. 13.In the case of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Menchand Mahto & Ors. reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204, the Court considered the death of a 12 year child and applied the ratio laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal (Supra), awarded a sum of Rs. 5,60,000/- by adopting the income and multiplier as applied by the learned Claims Tribunal in the instant case. Hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 14.Accordingly, the appeal being sans merit is liable to be and hereby dismissed. 15.Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- Sd/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Nisha