1 2025:CGHC:18972 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 464 of 2020 1 - Preeti Yadav Daughter Of Late Santosh Yadav Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Aunty (Buwa) Santoshi Yadav, Aged About 42 Years, Wife Of Shri Ful Singh Yadav, R/o Ratanpur, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Meenu Yadav Daughter Of Late Santosh Yadav Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Aunty (Buwa) Santoshi Yadav, Aged About 42 Years, Wife Of Shri Ful Singh Yadav, R/o Ratanpur, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ramesh Yadav Son Of Late Santosh Yadav Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Aunty (Buwa) Santoshi Yadav, Aged About 42 Years, Wife Of Shri Ful Singh Yadav, R/o Ratanpur, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants Versus 1 - Sunil @ Lete Uraon Son Of Shri Pusa Uraon Aged About 42 Years R/o Khora, P.S. Gumla, Jharkhand. (Driver Of Truck No. N L 01/ N-5245) 2 - Mehta Trans Logistics Pvt. Ltd R/o C.G. 192, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, District North West, Delhi, Delhi Pin 110042 Through - Ashok Kumar, Son Of Shri Ramdhari, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Quarter No. 196, Khasra No. 50/08, Garhi Colony, Khedakala, North West Delhi Pin 110082.(Owner Of Truck No. N L 01/ N- 5245) SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 3 - National Insurance Company Limited Through The Divisional Manager, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.(Insurer Of Truck No. N L 01/ N- 5245) ... Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Bhagwati Kashyap, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 28/04/2025 1. Office report shows that the service report of the Respondents No. 1 & 2 is not received. 2. Learned counsel for the respective parties submits that the liability to pay the amount of compensation is jointly and severally upon all the respondents. First liability to satisfy the award is upon the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company being insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. In the aforementioned facts of the case, with the consent of parties, appeal is heard finally at motion stage. 4. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 24.09.2019 passed by the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 568/2018 whereby, the learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application in part and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,55,000/- against the death of a child aged about 9 years. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 27.03.2018, when Ku. Jaya Yadav (deceased) along with her father namely, Santosh Yadav was going towards Hati on his motorcycle and reached near Arjun Dhaba, Beharmar, the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. NL 01 AN – 5245 which was driven by the Respondent No. 1 caused accident to 3 the motorcycle, in which Ku. Jaya Yadav, Santosh Yadav, Ramla Yadav @ Revti Yadav and Ku. Mahi suffered injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that in a motor accident, sister of the appellant aged about 09 years died against which, the appellant have submitted an application seeking compensation. However, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation of Rs. 2,55,000/- only. He submits that as the deceased Ku. Jaya Yadav was 09 yeas of age and therefore, considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. Vs. Lala & Ors. reported in 2014 (1) SCC 244 , learned Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation to the appellant/claimants. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant in the facts of the case is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and and also perused the record of the claim case as also, the miscellaneous appeal. 9. The death of a child aged about 8 years in a motor accident is not in dispute. The Respondent No. 3 is insurer of the ill-fated vehicle and the liability fastened upon the Respondent No. 3 is also not in dispute. 10. The date of accident is 27.03.2018. The application seeking compensation is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 11. Considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal (Supra) and Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ 4 Menchand Mahto & Ors. reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204 , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- against the death of a minor child aged about 10 and 12 years and considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding the amount of compensation as Rs. 2,55,000/- in total to the appellant/claimant which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 12. Accordingly, the amount of compensation computed by the learned Claims Tribunal as Rs. 2,55,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/-. Now the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- --------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey