[2025:RJ-JP:24555] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 138/2007 1. Bajrang son of Chandra Age about 40 years 2. Smt Ratni wife of Bajrang age about 38 years Both Resident Kala Khet (Nimera) Police Station Sawar, District- Ajmer ----Appellants Versus 1. Akbar Son of Shri Jamaludeen Age about 52 resident of New Colony, Swar Tehsil Kekri Dist Ajmer, at present driver in Ra- jasthan State road Transport Corporation, Ajmer Depot, Ra- jasthan (Driver Bus No. RJ-01-P-4168) 2. Manager, Rajasthan State Road Corporation, Jaipur (Owner Bus No. RJ-01-P-4168) 3. Manager, Rajasthan State Road Corporation, Ajmer Depo- Ajmer . (Owner Bus No. RJ-01-P-4168) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shruti Dixit HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 03/07/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 08.11.2006 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge, Kekri (hereinafter to be referred as 'the learned Tribunal') in MACT Case No.89/2006, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants has been partly allowed. 2. Brief facts of the matter are that on 25.06.2006 at about 3:30 PM, the appellant’s son, Dhanna @ Dhanraj, was hit by the bus driven by the respondent No.1, resulting in serious injuries, [2025:RJ-JP:24555] (2 of 4) [CMA-138/2007] leading to his death on the spot. FIR No. 73/2006 was registered under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, and a charge sheet was filed against the bus driver under the same sections. 3. The appellant filed a claim petition stating that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. It was pleaded that the deceased was 13 years old, a school-going child who also helped in cattle care, engaged in labour, and was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. A total claim of Rs. 16,03,000/- was sought from the non-claimants/respondents. 4. Respondent No. 1 filed a written statement denying the alle- gations, contending the claim was false and baseless, and as- serted that the bus was driven cautiously at a speed of 40 km/hr and accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased. 5. Respondents No. 2 and 3 (bus owners) also filed their written statements, while denying the allegations and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The learned Tribunal framed five issues based on the plead- ings. The claimants led oral evidence of Bajrang (AW 1) and Bhan- war Lal (AW 2) and documentary evidence Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-15. 7. The respondents did not produce any documentary or oral evidence. 8. Upon appreciation of the pleadings, witness statements, and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded a compensa- tion of Rs.1,50,000/- to the claimant. 9. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.11.2006, the ap- pellant has preferred this present appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:24555] (3 of 4) [CMA-138/2007] 10. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal erred by awarding an inadequate amount, and prayed for enhancement of the compensation on account of death of the ap- pellant's 13 year old son namely Dhanna @ Dhanraj. He further submits that now the law of compensation with regard to the death of a child is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Kishan Gopal and anr. Vs. Lala and Ors. re- ported (2014) 1 SCC 244 as well as in the matter of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & Ors. re- ported in 2022 INSC 1080 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for awarding compensation in the case of death of a child. Therefore, he prays the impugned order may be modified and the amount awarded under the impugned award be enhanced. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Rajasthan State Board Corporation vehemently opposed the submission so advanced. She further submitted that the learned Tribunal had duly considered all the aspects of the case including the fact that there is no loss of income in the case of death of a child, there- fore, the amount awarded under the impugned award appears to be just and proper, and accordingly does not call for any interfer- ence by this Hon'ble Court. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case and also the relevant citations so relied upon by the counsel for the appellant. 13. Considering the facts of the case, it is explicitly clear that the age of the deceased Dhanna @ Dhanraj was 13 years at the time [2025:RJ-JP:24555] (4 of 4) [CMA-138/2007] of the accident. Thus, the principles laid down in Kishan Gopal (supra) case are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, while applying the principles propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and Anr. (Supra) & Meena Devi (Supra), this court is of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not just and reasonable rather same is inadequate and contrary to the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and deserves to be en- hanced. Therefore, the impugned award is modified and the com- pensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the learned Tri- bunal is enhanced by Rs.3,50,000/- in addition. The total amount of the compensation would be Rs. 5,00,000/-. 14. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to Rs.5,00,000/- from the original amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. The respondents are di- rected to deposit the remaining amount of 3,50,000/- before the learned concerned Tribunal within 60 (Sixty) days from the date of passing of this order. The claimants are also entitled to get inter- est on the remaining amount of Rs.3,50,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of presentation until the realization of the said amount. 15. Record of the Court below be sent back. 16. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /105