1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 655 of 2024 1 - Arjun Manhar S/o Shri Bhakanand Manhar, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kurda, P.S. Malkharauda, Tahsil Malkharauda, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rajkumari Manhar W/o Arjun Manhar, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Kurda, P.S. Malkharauda, Tahsil Malkharauda, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants/claimants versus 1 - Paramjeet Singh S/o Mohinder Singh, Aged About 52 Years R/o M.I.G.-D- 13, Housing Board Colony, Industrial Area, Bhilai, District Durg (Cg) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Trailor Bearing Registration No. C.G. 07 C.K. 9655) 2 - Jaswant Singh S/o Premsingh, Resident Of Plot No. 41 G/8, Punjab Roadways Transport Nagar, Hathkhoj Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Trailor Bearing Registration No. C.G. 07 C.K. 9655) 3 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Second Floor, Dubey Complex, Near Basant Talkies, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Trailor Bearing Registration No. C.G. 07 C.K. 9655) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants/Claimants : Ms. Neeta Choubey, Advocate For Insurance Company : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 07/11/2025 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District Jangjir- 2 Champa (C.G.) in Claim Case No.17/2023 dated 06.01.2024 whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.3,80,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Pratap Manhar, aged about 16 years. 2. Ms. Choubey, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the age of the deceased was 16 years and he was a student of class -Xth. She would contend that on 10.03.2023 when he was going to school on his bicycle, the driver of the trailer bearing registration No.C.G.07/CK/9655 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed him, consequently, he sustained injuries and died on the spot. She would further contend that the learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- for loss of earning; Rs.15,000 for funeral expenses; Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, thus, awarded Rs.3,80,000/-. She would contend that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is at lower side. She would pray to enhance the compensation. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would oppose the submission made by counsel for the appellants. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. He would further submit that the deceased was a student of Class Xth and he was not earning member, therefore, learned Tribunal applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various matters rightly awarded compensation of Rs.3,80,000/-. He would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 3 5. It is a well-settled principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the category of non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation on the ground that the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. (2025 INSC 1070) held that in such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income to be made by adopting the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State. 7. The minimum wages admissible to skilled labourer in the month of March, 2023 was Rs.12,430/- which would be appropriate monthly income of the deceased. According to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-referred case, the appropriate multiplier would be 18. The claimants would be further entitled for 40% additional amount on the income as future prospect. Further, the claimants who are parents of the deceased would be entitled for sum of Rs.40,000/- - Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium. 8. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has granted lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.3,80,000/- which appears to be at lower side in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra). The compensation requires recomputation and same is being revisited herein below : Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Loss of earning Rs.3,50,000/- 12,430 x 12 = 1,49,160/- 4 2. Future Prospect NIL 40 % 59664 +1,49,160 = 2,08,824/- 3. Multiplier NIL 18 x 2,08,824 = 37,58,832/- 4. Deduction NIL 50% = Rs.18,79,416/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium (claimants No.1 & 2) NIL Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- 8. TOTAL Rs.3,80,000/- Rs.19,89,416/- 9 Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.19,89,416/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.3,80,000/-, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.16,09,416/-.The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions shall remain intact. 10 Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Rekha