1 CGHC010096692023 2026:CGHC:38748 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 487 of 2023 1 - Smt. Mamta Rathiya W/o Ghurau Ram Rathiya Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Gorpar, Thana- Jobi Kharsiya and Tahsil- Kharsiya, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Hali Mukam R/o Village Badmar, Thana- Kartala, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ghurau Ram Rathiya S/o Anuj Ram Rathiya Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Gorpar, Thana- Jobi Kharsiya and Tahsil- Kharsiya, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Hali Mukam R/o Village Badmar, Thana- Kartala, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh..............(Claimants) ... Appellant versus 1 - Chandra Kumar Gabel S/o Ram Prasad Gabel Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Mingaon Chowki- Jobi, Kharsiya and Tahsil Kharsiya, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.......................(Driver) 2 - (died and deleted) Ram Prasad Gabel (As per Honble Court order dated- 19-09-2025) ... Respondents For the appellants : Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. A.L. Singraul, Advocate For respondent : Mrs. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.09.03 14:38:29 +0530 2 01.09.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement and challenging the impugned award dated 14.11.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba District Bemetara (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 210/2021 whereby a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- has been awarded for the death of claimants’ son. 2. Brief facts of the pleaded in claim application are that on the date of accident 16.01.2021, deceased child Ariyanshu Rathia, aged about 4 to 5 years was travelling with his parents (claimants) on a motorcycle from Village Badmar to his home. When they reached Mingaon chowk, respondent no.1 driving the offending vehicle i.e., Tractor No. CG-13L/0802 in rash and negligent manner suddenly hit the motor cycle, as a result of which, Deceased child sustained grievous injuries on head, chest and other parts of body. He was taken to Kharsiya Hospital for treatment where he died. The claimants being legal heirs have filed claim application under section 166 of M.V. Act seeking a total compensation of Rs.37,05,000/- on various heads. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has erred by classifying a minor child as a “flat-rate non-earning individual” and such approach drastically undervalues human life. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.5 lakhs based on flat rate awarded by Tribunal is inadequate and it needs substantial enhancement. 4. Learned Counsel for respondents (Driver and Owner) submits that in view of the amendment incorporated under 2nd Schedule to 3 Section 163A of the Act of 1988, the Tribunal has rightly granted the prescribed statutory compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs, which needs no interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above. 6. The claimants pleaded that deceased child was aged about 5 ½ years at the time of accident. In his evidence, father of deceased Ghurau Ram Rathiya stated that Ariyansu‘s aged was five and half years. However, the inquest report (Ex.P-6) and the Post-mortem report (Ex.P-9) go to show the age of deceased child to be 4 years. The claimants have not produced any document regarding the actual age of deceased child. Therefore, the Tribunal considered the age of deceased to be 4 to 5 years at the time of accident. 7. Life is priceless and it cannot be measured in terms of money. However, the factors required to determine compensation cannot be quantified in the case of a young child. Considering the age of the deceased, the award does not appear to be inadequate. 8. Since the flat compensation of Rs.5 lakhs is adequate under the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned award passed by Tribunal warranting interference in this appeal. 9. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao