1 / 10 2025:CGHC:26934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 952 of 2019 1. Virendra Sehgal S/o Bishan Lal Sehgal Aged About 49 Years. 2. Kanchan Sehgal W/o Virendra Sehgal Aged About 45 Years Both are R/o Vivekanand Nagar, Ward No. 52, Borsi Road, Police Station- Pulgaon, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Manas Sen S/o Late R.N. Sen Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Plot No. 32, Vidya Vihar, Nehru Nagar (West), Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh..(Driver and Owner of the Offending Vehicle No. CG07MA 9847.) 2. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Chouhan Estate, Supela Station Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Reg. No. CG07 MA 9847) --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 : None appeared. Though served. For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Adv. on behalf of Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 23/06/2025 1. Appellants, parents of deceased Khushal Sahgal, aged about 16 years, have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') challenging award dated 07.03.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 10 298/2017 awarding total compensation of ₹3,15,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of application till realization. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 17.02.2017 in the morning about 06:45 a.m., Khushal Sahgal along with his friend Harsh Kankane left his house on Pleasure vehicle for exam. He thereafter rode motorcycle of his friend Akash Anand Masih, along with Akash Anand Masih. When he reached near Smriti Nagar Chowk, non-applicant No. 1/ driver of a WagonR. Car bearing No. CG 07 MA 9847 hit the motorcycle from its front and caused an accident. In the accident, Khushal Sehgal suffered injuries over his head, mouth and jaw. He was taken to Apollo Hospital, Bhilai, where the doctors declared Khushal Sehgal dead after examining him. On lodging report of the accident, Crime No.133/2017 was registered in Police Station-Supela, District-Durg (CG) against non-applicant No.1 and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the Court for alleged offences under Sections 279, 337, 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Claimants, who are parents of deceased Khushal Sahgal, filed application before competent Claims Tribunal claiming an amount of ₹ 83,55,000/- as compensation against the motor accidental death of their son late Khushal Sahgal. 4. Non-applicant No.1- driver & owner of offending car, submitted his reply to claim application, while denying all adverse pleadings made in claim application, it is further pleaded that on the date of accident, he was driving the vehicle WagonR car C.G.07 MA 9847 with utmost caution. In the additional statement it has been pleaded that the deceased was negligent while driving his vehicle rashly and his motorcycle collided with car due to which the deceased suffered severe injuries. A false case has been made against non-applicant No. 1. 3 / 10 5. Non-applicant No.2 Insurance Company also submitted its reply to claim application denying all material facts and allegation levelled therein, it was further denied that non-applicant No. 1 caused the accident while driving the offending vehicle car CG 07 MA 9847 and that the deceased died due to said accident. The applicants have tried to impose the damage caused by the deceased's own negligence on another person. The deceased met with an accident due to his own negligence. The deceased was a minor on the date of the accident and did not have valid and effective driving license. Non-applicant No. 1 was having a valid driving license on the date of accident. 6. The Claims Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (car) in which deceased lost his life, breach of condition of insurance policy was not found to be proved. Considering the age of the deceased as 16 years, Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 and cost of inflation, Tribunal considered income of deceased as ₹ 30,000/- per annum, notionally, for calculating loss of dependency, applied 50% deduction towards personal expenses, multiplier of 16 and further awarded ₹ 25,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹ 50,000/- towards love and affection, thus awarded total compensation of ₹ 3,15,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. 7. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased as ₹ 30,000/- per annum on notional basis which is on lower side. He contended that the deceased was aged about 16 years on the date of accident and a student and therefore 4 / 10 though the income has to be assessed on notional basis, however, it ought to have been considered taking note of minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. He further submits that the amount of compensation awarded on other heads is also on lower side. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that the deceased was not an earning member, he was a student of Class-10th. Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income of deceased as ₹ 30,000/- per annum. The amount of compensation awarded is just and proper and does not call for any interference. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204. 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. To determine the compensation for the death of a child, the initial trend was to award a lump sum money depending on the age of the child. However, in case of Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197, Hon’ble Supreme Court divided children into two categories, one comprised children in between the age group of 5 to 10 years and second between 10 to 15 years. For the first category, flat compensation was fixed whereas for second category the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the notional income as well as applied multiplier. Later on, the method of 5 / 10 awarding lump sum money for the death of children below the age of 10 years was discarded and the multiplier method came be to adopted as the single standard method for determining the compensation payable in cases of death of children of any age. Initially, in the case of death of a child upto 15 years, notional income of ₹ 15,000/- in terms of Second Schedule to Section 163A of the Act of 1988, was being adopted which was from time to time corrected/enhanced by taking into consideration the cost inflation index etc. 12. In case of Kishan Gopal & anr v. Lala & ors reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 Hon’ble Supreme Court, while assessing the notional Income of 10 years old deceased child who died in a road accident on 19.7.1992, declined to fix the income as ₹ 15,000 p.a. (the amount specified in the Second Schedule for a non-earning member) by observing that value of Rupee has come down drastically since 1994 and the amount mentioned in the Second Schedule would be inadequate. Therefore, Hon’ble Supreme Court determined notional income at ₹ 30,000/- p.a., by taking into consideration the Cost Inflation Index etc. 13. In the case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & ors, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413, while computing loss of earning for calculating compensation to be granted to a 12 years old girl child who suffered permanent disability in a road accident dated 18.10.2007, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Courts have erred in taking notional income of ₹ 15,000 p.a. as the girl was a young child of 12 years and held that this was not a proper way of assessing the future loss of income because after completing studies the child could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs 15,000/- p.a. Hence, the Supreme Court applied the Minimum Wages payable to a skilled workman and opined that the same would be 6 / 10 reflective of the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming major. 14. Subsequently, in case of Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 738, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the grant of compensation to the parents on account of injuries suffered by a five-year-old child in accident dated 21.09.2010, relying upon its decision in case of Kajal (Supra), observed that the notional income should be calculated on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker. It has also been observed that in addition to the Minimum Wages for skilled worker, the Claimants would also be entitled to 40% for future prospects in view of the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 15. In case of Master Jyothis Raj Krishna represented by his next friend and father Rajesh Kumar vs. Sunny George, reported in 2024 SCC Online Ker 6875, the High Court of Kerala has observed that "This Court is conscious of the fact that by referring to the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for the purpose the notional income of a minor child, this Court has never ignored the future of a blooming young mind nor has closed its eyes over the bright future of the child and the prospects which he may have secured but for this fatal accident." 16. In case of Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zeenat Khan & ors, reported in 2024 SCC Online Del 6941 the Delhi High Court while dealing with an appeal by Insurance Company challenging the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by presuming income of deceased child as per minimum wages of a unskilled labourer in Himachal Pradesh and adding future prospects @ 40%, has held that the Claims Tribunal 7 / 10 has rightly calculated the notional income of the child @ ₹ 8,250/-. The Court has observed thus:- “16. In light of the aforementioned rulings by the Supreme Court and this Court, the most reasonable approach to assess loss of dependency, even for a minor, would be to refer to the minimum wages established by the State Government in the location where the minor lived at the time of the accident. 17. As the notional income is being determined on basis of the minimum wages, future prospects would also be calculated on the basis of this income at the rate of 40% by applying the principle laid in National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. 18. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the notional income of the child @ ₹8,250/-, which was the minimum wages for unskilled worker in Himachal Pradesh. The Annual income has thus been rightly calculated as ₹99,000/- p.a. 40% of this Income, amounting to ₹39,600/- has been further added to this amount towards future prospects in terms of Pranay Sethi (Supra). The notional income thus, calculated as ₹1,38,600/- is in accordance with the observations made by the Apex Court, as discussed above.” 17. Thus, the position which emerges from the reading of above judgments is that in the past the income of a child died in a motor vehicular accident used to be assumed and notional income used to be fixed on the basis of 2nd Schedule to the Act of 1988, which has been increased from time to time by taking into account the inflation, devaluation of the rupee and cost of living. The Second Schedule to the Act of 1988 stands deleted w.e.f. 01.09.2019, and the trend thereafter, has been to calculate the dependency of child victim on the basis of minimum wage fixed by the State Government for the location where such child lived at the time of the accident. 8 / 10 18. For the foregoing discussion, though the Claims Tribunal has taken income of deceased on notional basis, however, the income is ascertained on lower side. In the present case, since the deceased was a minor aged about 16 years studying in Class-10th, however, there is no actual income proof available, this Court therefore finds it appropriate to adopt the accepted principle of fixing notional income to quantify loss. The minimum wages fixed by the State Government for unskilled/skilled laborers provide a reasonable and objective benchmark to ascertain the minimum earning capacity of the deceased child, had he survived and entered the workforce. 19. The date of accident is 17.02.2017. According to the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the minimum wages fixed for an unskilled worker during 01.10.2016 to 31.03.2017 is ₹ 8,320/- per month. Therefore, I find it appropriate to fixed the monthly income of deceased on notional basis as ₹ 8,320/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. In addition to the Minimum Wages for unskilled worker, the claimants would also be entitled to 40% for future prospects in view of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra). There are two claimants/ dependents, deceased was unmarried and therefore in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC, there shall be deduction of 1/2 towards loss of dependency and the appropriate multiplier would be 18 (for the age group from 15 to 20). Appellants-claimants will further be entitled for loss of consortium of ₹ 40,000 each, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 9 / 10 20. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires recomputation, which is as under. 21. The monthly income of deceased is taken as ₹ 8,320/- ie., yearly income as ₹ 99,840/-. Upon adding 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, yearly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to ₹ ₹ 1,39,776/- . After deducting 1/2 towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to ₹ 69,888/-. Upon applying multiplier of 18, total loss of dependency will come to ₹ 12,57,984/-. Besides the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency, appellants-claimants shall further be entitled for compensation of ₹ 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium, ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Particulars Compensation • Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 99,840/- (₹ 8,320x12) • Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 40% (₹ 99840 x 140% = ₹ 1,39,776) • Deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses (₹ 1,39,776 x 1/2= ₹ 69,888) • Multiplier of 18 ₹ 69,888 x 18 = ₹ 12,57,984/- ₹ 12,57,984/- Loss of filial consortium to Appellants (₹ 40,000 each) ₹ 80,000/- Loss of estate ₹ 15,000/- Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- Total ₹ 13,67,984/- 22. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 13,67,984/- instead of ₹ 3,15,000/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be 10 / 10 adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 23. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn