-1- 2025:CGHC:15026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 461 of 2020 1 - Dhan Kumar S/o Ganesh Ram Aged About 25 Years 2 - Kavita W/o Dhan Kumar Aged About 24 Years Both are R/o Bijhouri, P. S. Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Shivsharan Yadav S/o Shailesh Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Bhimpuri, Tedhadhoura, Chowki Fasterpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ...........(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C. G. 10 F 8535) 2 - Girija Shankar Shrivastava S/o K. N. Shrivastava R/o Pandariya Road, Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ...........(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C. G. 10 F 8535), 3 - Ifco Tokiya General Insurance Company Ltd. District Raipur Chhattisgarh ...........(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C. G. 10 F 8535) ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate For Resp. No.1 & 2 : Mr. Sahdev Yadav, Advocate For Resp. No.3 : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 28/03/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.04.01 17:21:08 +0530 -2- is heard finally. 2. This is the claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Additional Member of Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G) vide award dated 4th March 2016 passed in Motor Accidents Claim Case No. 32 of 2014. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/ /claimants filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Act against the respondent/non-applicants before the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli, pleading therein that on 03.03.2014, near Sitaldah Chowk, their son- Topsingh was standing with them on the side of the road. At the same time, non-applicant No.1, driving his motorcycle bearing registration No.CG 10 EM 8535 rashly and negligently, hit Topsingh and caused an accident in which Topsingh suffered grievous injuries on his hands, feet, head and other parts of the body. He was taken to the District Hospital Mungeli where during treatment he died. Appellant/claimants being parents of deceased prayed for grant of compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- under various heads from the non-applicants. 4. Denying all the pleadings of the claim application, in their written statement, non-applicants No. 1 & 2 stated that accident did not take place on 03.03.2014 with motorcycle No. CG 10 EM 8535. A false report has been lodged against non-applicant No.1. The said offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3/ insurance company covering all risks on the date of accident, and therefore, non-applicant -3- No.3/ insurance company is liable to pay compensation amount to the applicants. They prayed that the claim application be dismissed against them. 5. Non-applicant No.3/ Insurance Company in its written statement has denied all the allegations pleaded in the claim application and stated that the accident did not take place on 03.03.2014 with the motorcycle No. CG 10 EM 8535. It has been specifically stated in the reply that non-applicant No.1 did not have a valid driving licence on the date of accident. The terms of the insurance policy have been violated by non- applicants No. 1 & 2. Therefore, the insurance company/non-applicant No.3 is not responsible to pay the compensation amount to the applicants. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, has held that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle i.e. non-applicant No.1 in which Topsingh suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to death. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved and accordingly calculated and awarded a total sum of Rs.2,45,000/- as compensation, holding liability to pay the amount of compensation upon non-applicants/ respondents jointly and severally. 7. Relying on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kishan Gopal & Anr. Vs. Lala & Ors (2014) 1 SCC 244 wherein compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- has been awarded in case of death of a child, it is submitted by learned counsel for appellants that -4- compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal in the case at hand is not just and reasonable, it is on lower side and hence it is required to be enhanced. He further submits that amount awarded by Claims Tribunal under other heads is also on lower side and it requires to be enhanced appropriately. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposing the submission of learned counsel for the appellants submits amount awarded by Claims Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court as the deceased was only 6 years old, dependent on his parents and was not an earning member. The statement made by the appellants is based only on future possibilities. It is also submitted that if this Court accepts the prayer made in appeal, interest for the delayed period in filing of appeal be not granted. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. The only point which requires consideration of this Court is whether the Claims Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation to claimants or not ? 11. In the matter of Kishan Gopal (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court considering its earlier decision in the matter of Lata Wadhwa & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 197 awarded an amount of Rs.5 Lakh as compensation by assessing income of deceased on notional basis as Rs.30,000/- per annum on the ground that the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994. In the matter of Lata Wadhwa (supra) it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that -5- though in case of death of a child on account of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident, compensation could not be awarded by assessing income of child on notional basis and applying multiplier, but at the same time it is to be kept in mind that loss of a child cannot be equated in terms of money and therefore some reasonable amount of compensation should be awarded to the parents. Further, the parents would also be entitled for compensation towards loss of estate. 12. Similarly, in the case of Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto alias Nemchand Mahto & Ors. (2023) 1 SCC 204, Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the death of a 12 years child and reiterating and applying the ratio laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) has awarded a sum of Rs.5 Lakh by adopting the income and multiplier as applied by the learned Claims Tribunal in that case. 13. In the case at hand, admittedly the death of child took place in the year 2014 and in between 1994 to 2014 the value of rupee has drastically come down, which is to be taken into consideration while awarding amount of compensation. This apart, claimants/appellants herein are also entitled for compensation under the heads of loss of love & affection and loss of consortium of child. 14. Considering overall facts and circumstances of case and law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kishan Gopal (supra) & Meena Devi (supra), in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be served if a lump sum amount Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded as compensation to claimants/appellants along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of application till its realization. -6- 15. On the basis of above discussion, the claimants/appellants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- instead of Rs.2,45,000/- Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 16. Further, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lakkamma & Ors. vs. Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2021) 20 SCC 797, it is directed that the appellants/claimants will not be entitled for the interest on the additional amount of compensation for the delayed period, which is of 1354 days. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen