-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2309 of 2019 1 - Gajendra Loniya S/o Tulsiram Loniya Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Mopka, Near Shiv Temple, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Rajni Netam W/o Gajendra Loniya Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Mopka, Near Shiv Temple, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...Appellants versus 1 - Shankar Sahu S/o Ramkumar Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Jodhpur (Barampur), Police Station Lalpur, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Tractor No. C.G. 28/d/0605)., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramkumar Sahu S/o Chhoturam Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Jodhpur (Barampur), Police Station Lalpur, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Tractor No. C.G. 28/d/0605)., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Simral Tower, Near Small Railway Line, Devendra Nagar Road Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Tractor No. C.G. 28/d/0605)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For respondent No.3 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For respondents No.1 & 2 : None appears though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.11.2025 1) The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.763/2017 dated 24.09.2019, whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the REKHA SINGH -2- tune of Rs.2,55,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of minor child, aged about 2 years and six months. 2) Learned Tribunal has fastened liability with the driver and owner of the vehicle with stipulation that the Insurance Company shall indemnify the compensation and thereafter, recover it from driver and owner of the vehicle. 3) The claimants, who are parents of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act and claimed a sum of Rs.13,70,000/-. The driver and owner were proceeded ex parte. The Insurance company filed reply and denied the averments made in claim application. The parties led evidence and thereafter, an award was passed by the learned Tribunal. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that on 18.01.2017, minor child and his uncle were sitting on offending tractor bearing registration No.C.G.28/D/0605 and due to rash and negligent driving, the child fell down from tractor and sustained injuries, resultantly, minor child succumbed to death. He would submit that the learned Tribunal exonerated the Insurance company on the ground that there was no sitting capacity on the tractor and thus, there was breach of insurance policy. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award and recover it from owner and driver of the vehicle. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- for loss of dependency; Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and thus, total sum of Rs.2,55,000/- has been awarded which is at lower side. He would further submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Another, passed in Civil Appeal No.10278 of 2025 and in the matter of -3- Thangavel and others Vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1649 held that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment. It is further held that in such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises. In the matter of Thangavel (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the monthly income of the deceased Rs.5,000/- without any deduction and applied multiplier of 15 looking to the age of the mother of the deceased and further awarded compensation on conventional heads. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 5) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation. He would further submit that the deceased was not an earning member as he was of 2½ years of age, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly granted compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- for loss of income. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. -4- 7) In the matter of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra) which was an injury case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held 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. 8) In the case of Thangavel (supra) which was a death case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the monthly income of deceased Rs.5,000/- without any deduction for personal expenses and applied multiplier of 15 looking to the age of mother of the deceased. Applying same proposition of law, the notional income of the deceased is assessed to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month and looking to the age of the parents, multiplier of 18 would be appropriate multiplier. The claimants would be entitled for 40,000/- - Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium. The compensation for loss of estate and funeral expenses have already been awarded by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the compensation requires recomputation and same is being revisited herein below : Sr.No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.15,000/- yearly Rs.5,000/-x 12 = 60,000/- 2. Future Prospect Not awarded -- 3. Deduction NA -- 4. Multiplier 15 x Rs.15,000/-= Rs.2,25,000/- 18 x 60,000= Rs.10,80,000/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- -5- 6. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium (for appellant No.1) Not awarded Rs.48,000/- 8. Loss of Consortium (for appellant No.2) Not awarded Rs.48,000/- 9. Total Rs.2,55,000/- Rs.12,06,000/- 9) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.12,06,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.2,55,000/-, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.9,51,000/- The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions of award shall remain intact. 10) The learned Tribunal has fastened liability with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, such finding is hereby affirmed. The Insurance Company shall first indemnify the compensation and thereafter, recover it from driver and owner of the vehicle. 11) 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