1 2025:CGHC:13524 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 318 of 2020 1 - Chinga Ram Nag S/o Late Ayata Nag Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Police Line Geedam School Para, Police Station And District Sukma, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Somi Nag W/o Chinga Ram Nag Aged About 28 Years R/o Near Police Line Geedam School Para, Police Station And District Sukma, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kumari Ankita Nag D/o Chinga Ram Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Chinga Ram Nag,r/o Near Police Line Geedam School Para, Police Station And District Sukma, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants Versus 1 - S.K. Sayed Baji S/o S.K. Navi Saheb Baji Aged About 44 Years R/o Kamorpukota Colony Kamorkota Madaltali, Cherla Dwarika Trimla, Police Station Tadikelapudi, District Vest Godawari (Andhra Pradesh) (Driver Of Vehicle A.P.37 T.F.3289). 2 - Ganga Bhawani Kondredi S/o Murli Krishna R/o D.No.4 -168-8/4, Ganesh Nagar Past Ward Tadepaligudem, District West Godawari (Andhra Pradesh) (Owner Of Vehicle A.P. 37 T.F. 3289). 3 - Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Sirasar Chowk Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle A.P. 37 T.F. 3289). ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 21/03/2025 1. There is no representation on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, though served. 2. Notice sent to the Respondent No. 2 is reported to be unserved. 3. In the impugned award, liability is fastened jointly and severely upon the Respondents No. 2 & 3. The Respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company who has been primarily held liable to satisfy the amount of compensation and therefore, the service of notice upon the Respondent No. 2 is dispensed with. 4. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant as also, the pleadings made in the application. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions of the counsel for the respective parties as also, the pleadings made in the application, I.A. No. 01/2020 is allowed. Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 7. Appeal is admitted for hearing. 8. With the consent of the parties, appeal is heard finally. 9. This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 29.07.2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dantewada, District – North Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 35/2018 whereby, the learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application in part and awarded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- against the death of a child aged about 8 years. 3 10. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 06.02.2018 at about 12:00 P.M., when the deceased i.e. Bhupesh Nag was playing along with other children, at that time, the offending truck bearing Registration No. AP 37 TF – 3289 which was driven by the Respondent No. 1 dashed the truck and the truck flipped, which caused serious injuries to Bhupesh Nag who succumbed to the injuries. 11. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal had erroneously taken the income of the deceased child notionally as Rs. 30,000/- per month and accordingly, the amount of compensation has been computed by applying the multiplier of 15, which in the facts and circumstances of the case is erroneous. Learned Claims Tribunal has overlooked the date of accident which is 06.02.2018 and considering the date of accident, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income of the deceased higher than that, it is applied. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 13.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 14.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 illfated vehicle and the liability fastened upon the Respondent No. 3 is also not in dispute. 15. In the aforementioned facts of the case and also considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering its earlier decision in the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. Vs. Lala & Ors. reported in 2014 (1) SCC 244 has considered the amount of compensation to be awarded in a fatal accident case for the children in between the age group of 7 to 10 years, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles for awarding the amount of compensation in case of death of the 4 minor child and therefore, the appeal has been decided at the admission stage itself. 16. Learned Claims Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased who died in a motor accident as 08 years and applying the ratio laid down in case of Kishan Gopal (Supra) and by adopting the income on notional basis as Rs. 30,000/- per year and applying the multiplier of fifteen as also, adding Rs. 50,000/- towards other heads has computed the amount of compensation as Rs. 5,00,000/- and accordingly, the amount of Rs. 05,00,000/- is awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants. 17. In the case of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Menchand Mahto & Ors. reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204 also, the Court considered the death of a 12 year child and applied the ratio laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal (Supra), awarded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- by adopting the income and multiplier as applied by the learned Claims Tribunal in the instant case. Hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 18.Accordingly, the appeal being sans merit is liable to be and hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. 19. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey