1 2025:CGHC:54643 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 306 of 2024 1. Ashok Kumar Gupta S/o Kashinath Gupta Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Nearby Shishu Shiksha Niketan, Haldibadi, Chirmiri, Police Station And Tehsil Chirmiri, Dist. Koriya, C.G. 2. Arti Gupta W/o Ashok Kumar Gupta Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Nearby Shishu Shiksha Niketan, Haldibadi, Chirmiri, Police Station And Tehsil Chirmiri, Dist. Koriya, C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Ramkumar Paikra S/o Rameshwar Paikra Aged About 31 Years R/o Dawansara (Daraghat), Police Station Jhilmili, Dist. Surajpur, C.G. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle I.E. Scorpio Bearing Registration No. Cg-15- D.B.-3150) 2. Bhupendra Pratap Singh S/o Late Kanhaiya Pratal Singh Aged About 59 Years R/o Satyanagar, Bhaiyathan Post Sirsi, Police Station Jhilmili, Dist. Surajpur, C.G. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle I.E. Scorpio Bearing Registration No. Cg-15-D.B.-3150) 3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Third Floor, Kartaram Complex, Plot No. 334/11, Mg Road, Banaras Chowk, Ambikapur, C.G. (Insurance Company With Whom The Offending Vehicle I.E. Scorpio Bearing Registration No. Cg-15-D.B.-3150 Was Insured) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Suraj Patel, Advocate along with Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.11 .2025 1. This is claimants appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, directed against award passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chirmiri, District Koriya in Claim Case No. 17/2023 dated 15.01.2024, SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.11.11 17:34:35 +0530 2 whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 10,73,911/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per anum on account of death of Om Gupta. 2. Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate would argue that the age of the deceased Om Gupta was 12 years on 01.12.2021; he was a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 15 CM 7259 and it was being driven by his maternal uncle, namely, Anip Kumar Gupta. He would further submit that the said motorcycle was dashed by Scorpio bearing registration No. CG 15 DB 3150, resultantly, the deceased sustained injuries and died during course of treatment on 12.12.2021. He would also submit that the learned Tribunal has considered monthly notional income of the deceased Rs. 2500/-, which is not in consonance with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel versus Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 871. He would contend that the learned Tribunal ought to have treated the deceased a skilled labourer and should have applied admissible minimum wages. He would fairly submit that on conventional heads the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. He would pray to enhance the award. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Insurance company would submit that the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 20, which is erroneous. He would further submit that the proper multiplier would be 18 He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 12 years and the learned Tribunal considered his notional income Rs. 30,000/- per annum, which is not in 3 consonance with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra) has held that when a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, he must be placed in the category of skilled labouerer while computing compensation, the relevant para 9 is reproduced herein-below :- “9. On the aspect of montyhly income of the minor appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the Courts below. In the present case, it is evident that the Courts below have failed to take into account the monthly income of the appellant while dtereming the quantum of compnesation. It is now a well-enterenched and consistently reiterated principle of law 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 indivisdual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the eomputation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very lease, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises. The said observation was rendered by this Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors.(2020) 4 SCC 413, and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692.” 6. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has considered notional income of the deceased Rs. 30,000/- per annum, which is at lower side. According to the minimum wages matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh, the 4 minimum wages admissible to skilled labourer in January, 2021 was Rs. 11,230/-. Further, the learned Tribunal committed error of law by applying the multiplier of 20, which is not prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Act and the appropriate multiplier should be 18. 7. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, material available on record and in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra), this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 2,500 x12 = Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 11,230 x 12 = Rs. 1,34,760/- 2. Future Prospect (40%) = Rs. 12,000/- (40%) = Rs. 53,904/- 3. Deduction (-) ½ Rs. 21,000/- (-) ½ Rs. 94,332/- 4. Loss of earning Rs. 30,000/- + Rs. 12000/- - Rs. 21,000/- = Rs. 21,000/- Rs. 1, 34,760/- + Rs. 53,904/- - Rs. 94,332/- = Rs. 94,332/- 5. Multiplier (x) 20 = Rs. 4,20,000/- (x) 18 = Rs. 16,97,976/- 6. Medical Expenses Rs. 5,33,911/- Rs. 5,33,911/- 7. Conveyance and Attendant Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 8. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 9. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 5 10. Loss of Consortium (for appellant No. 1) Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 40,000/- 11. Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 2) Rs. 40,000/- TOTAL Rs. 10,73,911/- Rs. 23,51,887/- 8. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 10,73,911/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 23,51,887/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 10,.73,911/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 12,77,976/- with interest at the rate of 7.5%. The Insurance company is directed to deposit enhanced amount of compensation within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18%. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 9.Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant