1 2025:CGHC:51779 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1908 of 2018 1 - Muleshwar S/o Dasru Kevant Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Sakola, At Present Kotmikala, Tahsil Pendra, P.S. Pendra, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Chandrabhan Singh Gond S/o Veer Singh Gond Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bisheshra, P.S. Pendra, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Driver), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sureshchand Gupta S/o Chhotelal Gupta Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Sakola, At Present Address Kotmikala, Tahsil Pendra, Chowki Kotmi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Owner), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : None. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ujjawal Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Mahesh Pandey, Advocate. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/10/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 26.10.2016 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road, District-Bilaspur (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 27/2015 whereby an amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded in the favour of the claimants of the deceased for their irreparable loss. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the appellant/claimant filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 for the death of his son, Yogesh Kumar, who died in a motor accident on 15.10.2015. Respondent No. 1 is the driver of the offending vehicle, and Respondent No. 2 is the registered owner. According to the claimant, on 18.10.2015, around 12 o'clock, his 8-year-old son was struck by a tractor (Sonalika) with registration number C.G.10 DA 1411 and trolley number C.G.10 DA 1458, driven rashly and negligently by Respondent No. 1, resulting in grievous head injuries and death. The incident was reported to the police at Chowki Kotmi, and a case under Section 304A IPC was registered against Respondent No. 1, who later faced a charge sheet in the JMFC 3 court at Pendra Road. The claimant suffered irreparable loss due to his son's death and claimed compensation accordingly. Respondent No. 1 appeared initially but then absented himself, leading the tribunal to proceed ex parte against him. Respondent No. 2 contested the claim, denying that Respondent No. 1 was driving or that the accident involved his vehicle, stating that on the accident date, the vehicle was stationary while carrying "Murum" for agricultural use, and the driver fled after people gathered at the scene. Respondent No. 2 also claimed that a false case was filed despite his police complaint, arguing the claimants are not entitled to compensation. The tribunal framed five issues, partially allowed the claim, and awarded Rs. 1,15,000 as compensation, which the appellant contends is inadequate. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award dated 26.10.2016 (Annexure A/1) is manifestly unjust, improper, and wholly inadequate when viewed in the light of the facts, circumstances, and material evidence available on record, and is therefore liable to be enhanced suitably. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in its assessment by failing to properly appreciate and evaluate the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence presented before it, resulting in the grant of an unreasonably low quantum of compensation. The appellant further submits that the tragic 4 demise of the deceased, who was a mere eight-year-old child, is a loss that cannot be adequately compensated in monetary terms. The deceased was not only a child but also the sole hope and source of solace for the grieving father, making the award grossly meager and wholly insufficient to meet the ends of justice. Moreover, the amount awarded under various heads, including love and affection, funeral expenses, and other consequential damages, is disproportionately low and thus warrants substantial enhancement to reflect the true nature of the loss suffered by the appellant. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Thangavel vs. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State as well as judgment passed by this Court in the matter of United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. passed in MAC No. 969/2022 on 28.8.2025. 4. None for respondent No. 1 who is the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 opposes the same. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the 5 compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 8. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 9. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto alias Nemchand Mahto and Others reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204 wherein in a case of death of a minor child aged about 12 years, the Supreme Court relying its judgments in the cases of Kishan Gopal & Anr v. Lala & Ors, (2014) 1 SCC 244 and Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali and Anr v. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Anr, (2022) 1 SCC 317, in paragraphs – 14, 15, 16 & 18 held as under:- “14. Recently in the case of Kurvan Ansari (supra), wherein a child aged about 7 years died in a road accident took place on 6.9.2004, this 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 6 heads, awarded Rs. 4,70,000/-. 15. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the cases of child death, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- as specified in the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act has been enhanced on account of devaluation of money and value of rupee coming down from the date on which the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act was introduced and the said notional income was treated as Rs. 30,000/- in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) and Rs. 25,000/- in Kurvan Ansari (supra) in age group of 10 and 7 years respectively. 16. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments, looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the principles laid down in case of Kishan Gopal (supra) are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. As per the ocular statement of the mother of the deceased, it is clear that deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning Rs. 30,000/- including future prospect and applying the multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- and if we add Rs. 7 50,000/- in conventional heads, then the total sum of compensation comes to Rs.5,00,000/-. As per the judgment of MACT, lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs. 2,00,000/- up to the value of the Claim Petition. In our view, the said amount of compensation is not just and reasonable looking to the computation made hereinabove. Hence, we determine the total compensation as Rs. 5,00,000/- and on reducing the amount as awarded by the High Court i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/-, the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 3,00,000/-. 10. In the case in hand, the deceased was also 8 years at the time of accident, applying the same principle and analogy in the present case also, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation payable to the claimant herein in similar terms and quantifies the compensation at Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards love and affection. Thus, the appellant/claimant in the instant case shall be entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- instead of Rs. 1,15,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- is awarded. After deducting Rs. 1,15,000/- as awarded by the claims Tribunal, the 8 enhancement would be Rs. 3,85,000/-. 12. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat