1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 835 of 2024 1 - Kamal Kishore S/o Mukund Ram Paikra, Aged About 40 Years R/o Soor, Police Station And Tehsil Sitapur, District Sarguja (Cg) --------(Claimants) 2 - Sandhya Paikra W/o Kamal Kishore, Aged About 36 Years R/o Soor, Police Station And Tehsil Sitapur, District Sarguja (Cg) --------(Claimants) ...Appellants versus 1 - Vijay Kumar Gupta S/o Raghunath Prasad Gupta, R/o Jodapipal Church Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (Cg) ---(Owner) 2 - Shobhit Ram Kanhaiyalal, R/o Maharanipur, Police Station Sitapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh Present Address Jagatpur, Police Station Baikunthput, District Koriya (Cg) ---(Driver) 3 - Branch Manager H.D.F.C. Geneal Insurance Company Limited, 1st Floor, Kh. No. 730/2, D2h Ph. No. 22 Ward No. 30, Rani Laxmi Nagar, Near Raman Magneto Malls Indusind Bank, Bilaspur (Cg.) ----(Insurance Company) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr.Sandeep Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.10.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.1, an application for condonation of delay in filing instant appeal. 2. Mr. Patel would submit that this appeal has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and there is delay of 284 days in filing instant appeal. He would contend that the claimants are poor villagers and in absence of knowledge of limitation period, they could not approach this Court within limitation. He would pray to condone the delay. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would oppose. 2 4. On due consideration, I.A. No.1 is allowed. 5. Delay of 284 days caused in filing instant appeal is hereby condoned. 6. Heard on admission. 7. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal against an award passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Claim Case No.45/2020 dated 29.03.2023 whereby, the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of one Prashant Paikra aged between 11 to 15 years. 8. The claimants are parents of the deceased. They pleaded that the deceased was a student and his age was 15 years. They claimed sum of Rs.12,10,000/- with interest. 9. Respondents No.1 & 2, driver and owner of the vehicle filed separate reply and denied averments made in the claim application. The respondent No.3/Insurance Company also filed reply and took a plea that father of the deceased was driving motorcycle rashly and negligently. It is also pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration No.C.G.15/DC/8120 was not having effecting driving licence. 10.Learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and thereafter, learned Tribunal passed an award. 11. Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount. He would contend that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the notional income of the deceased according to the minimum wages payable to unskilled labourer. He would further contend that on conventional heads, learned Tribunal has not awarded just and proper compensation. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kishan Gopal & Anr. vs. Lala & Ors., (2014) 1 SCC 244, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in cases of death of a minor child, the claimants are entitled to just and 3 reasonable compensation. It is argued that in view of the said principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the compensation deserves to be enhanced. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would oppose the submission made by counsel for the appellants. He would contend that as the age of the deceased was between 11 to 15 years as considered by the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. He would further contend that on other heads, learned Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. In the matter of Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto, (2023) 1 SCC 204, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave following observations: "13. Thereafter in Kishan Gopal [Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244] , a child aged about 10 years died in a road accident took place on 19-7-1992, this Court made departure from the IInd Schedule of the MV Act and accepted the notional income of Rs 30,000 in place of Rs 15,000 applying the analogy that the value of rupee has come down drastically since 1994 when the notional income of Rs 15,000 was fixed in IInd Schedule of the MV Act. However accepting the notional income as Rs 30,000 and as per the age of the parents i.e. 36 years, the loss of dependency was calculated applying the multiplier of 15 at Rs 4,50,000 and a sum of Rs 50,000 was awarded under conventional heads awarding a total sum of compensation of Rs 5,00,000.” 15.Recently in the matter of Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu [Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, (2022) 1 SCC 317 : (2022) 1 SCC (Civ) 365 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , wherein a child aged about 7 years died in a road accident took place on 6-9-2004. The Hon’ble Supreme Court taking notional income as Rs 25,000, applying the multiplier of 15, calculated the loss of dependency as Rs 3,75,000 and adding Rs.55,000/- in conventional heads, awarded Rs 4,70,000/-. 16. In the matter of Kishan Gopal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the death of a 10-year-old child, awarded Rs.5,00,000/- as just compensation and held that in cases of death of minor children, 4 compensation should not be illusory but must be reasonable, keeping in view the loss to the parents. 17.Taking into consideration the above discussed facts & law, I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has already awarded a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- which is just and proper. 18. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Consequently, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha