Chattisgarh High Court
Preeti Yadav vs Sunil @ Lete Uraon on 1 April, 2025
1/7
2025:CGHC:15203
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 490 of 2020
1. Preeti Yadav D/o Late Santosh Yadav Aged About 14 Years
2. Meenu Yadav D/o Late Santosh Yadav Aged About 12 Years
3. Ramesh Yadav S/o Late Santosh Yadav Aged About 10 Years
All are Minor through their Natural Guardian Aunty (Buwa) Santoshi Yadav,
Aged About 42 Years, wife of Shri Ful Singh Yadav. Resident of Ratanpur,
Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
--- Appellants/ Claimants
versus
1. Sunil @ Lete Uraon S/o Shri Pusa Uraon Aged About 42 Years R/o Khora,
Police Station Gumla, Jharkhand (Driver Of Truck No. Nl 01 / N - 5245),
Jharkhand
2. Mehta Trans Logistics Pvt Ltd. C.G. 192, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar ,
District North West , Delhi, Delhi Pin 110042 Through Ashok Kumar , Son Of
Shri Ramdhari , Aged About 53 Years , R/o Quarter No. 196, Khasra No.
50/08, Garhi Colony, Khedakala, North West Delhi Pin 110082 (Owner Of
Truck No. Nl 01 / N - 5245)
3. National Insurance Company Limited through the Divisional Manager, Vyapar
Vihar Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Truck No. Nl
01 / N - 5245)
--- Respondents
____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mrs. Bhagwati Kashyap, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu PAWAN KUMAR Order On Board JHA Digitally 01/04/2025 signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA
1. Appellants, siblings of deceased Ku. Mahi Yadav, aged about 8 years, have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') challenging award dated 24.09.2019 passed 2/7 by learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 562/2018 awarding total compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of application till realization.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 27.03.2018, deceased Ku. Mahi Yadav was going to Hati on a motorcycle driven by her father Santosh Yadav. When they reached near Behramar Arjun Dhaba, non-applicant No. 1/ driver of the truck number NL 01 N 5245 (henceforth "offending vehcile", while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle driven by Santosh Yadav and caused an accident, due to which Ku. Mahi Yadav, riding on it, died. In the said accident, Ramla Yadav alias Revati Yadav and Ms. Jaya Yadav, who were riding on the vehicle, were also died and Ramesh Yadav suffered serious injuries. In connection with the accident, crime No. 45/2018 for alleged offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A) IPC has been registered against non-applicant No. 1 at police station Chhal, District-Raigarh (CG)
3. Claimants, who are siblings of deceased, filed claim application before competent Claims Tribunal claiming an amount of Rs.17,25,000/- as compensation on account of death of late Ku. Mahi Yadav due to injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident.
4. Non-applicant No.1 & 2, driver & owner of offending vehicle have not filed their reply and remained absent from the proceedings and therefore they were proceed ex parte.
5. Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company also submitted its reply to claim application denying all material facts and allegation levelled therein apart from the admitted facts. It was further pleaded that the driver of 3/7 motorcycle Santosh Yadav drove the motorcycle in violation of section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act as along with him 4 other persons Ramla Yadav, Miss Jaya, Miss Mahi and Ramesh Yadav were also sitting on the motor cycle and not taking proper care and caution.Therefore the motor cycle went out of control and collided with the truck coming from the right direction of the road. Thus the deceased driver of motorcycle contributed in causing accident. Non-applicant No. 2 has violated the conditions of the insurance policy by giving the said vehicle to non-applicant No. 1 for driving. It has been stated that the insurance company is not responsible for the compensation, and pleaded to dismiss the claim application filed against it by appellants.
6. The 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 of truck by non-applicant No. 1- driver in which Ku. Mahi Yadav (deceased) lost her life. Breach of conditions of insurance policy and the contributory negligence were not found to be proved and accordingly calculated and awarded a total sum of Rs.2,55,000/- as compensation, holding liability to pay the amount upon non-applicants/ respondents jointly and severally.
7. Relying on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kishan Gopal & anr v. Lala & ors reported in (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 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. Learned counsel for appellants further placing reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor 4/7 Ahmad Simon reported in 2024 ACJ 2721 submits that the deceased Ku. Mahi Yadav was 9 years old at the time of the accident and was studying, she would have taken up a Government job when she grew up and would have earned at least Rs. 25,000/- per month and would have helped her family and her income would have definitely increased in the future. She 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 supported the impugned award and submitted that amount awarded by Claims Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court as the deceased was only 9 to 10 years old, dependent on her parents and was not an earning member. The submission made by the counsel for appellants is based only on future possibilities.
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), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering its earlier decision in the matter of Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar reported in (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/- p.a. in place of Rs 15,000 applying the analogy that the value of rupee has come down drastically since 1994 when the notional income of Rs 15,000 was fixed in II nd Schedule of the MV Act and as per the age of the parents i.e. 36 years, the loss of dependency was calculated applying the multiplier of 15 at Rs 4,50,000 and a sum of Rs 50,000 was 5/7 awarded under other conventional heads awarding a total sum of compensation of Rs 5,00,000. In the matter of Lata Wadhwa (supra) it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that 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/guardian would also be entitled for compensation towards loss of estate.
12. Similarly, in the case of Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204 considered the death of a 12 year child and reiterated and applied 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 2018 and in between 2018 to 2025 the value of rupee has come down, which is to be taken into consideration while awarding amount of compensation. As per the ocular statement given by legal representative of appellants, it is clear that the deceased child was a brilliant student. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came to be amended w.e.f. 09.08.2019 and according to the amended provision under Section 164 in case of death compensation of Rs. 5 Lakh is to be awarded. In the said factual matrix, date of accident just before the amendment and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the compensation is required to be determined. This apart, claimants/appellants herein are also entitled for compensation under the heads of loss of love & affection and loss of consortium of child. 6/7
14. Considering overall facts and circumstances of case, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be served applying the ratio of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kishan Gopal (supra) & Meena Devi (supra), looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e. 10 years as held by Claims Tribunal, the principles laid down in the aforementioned rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. 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 v. DTC, [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,50,000 [Rs. 30,000x15]. By adding a lumpsum amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards other conventional heads, the total sum of compensation comes to Rs 5,00,000. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,55,000/- by taking notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. In the opinion of this Court, the said amount of compensation is not just and reasonable looking to the computation made hereinabove. Hence, this Court determines the total compensation as Rs. 5,00,000/- and on reducing the amount as awarded by the Claims Tribunal i.e. Rs. 2,55,000, the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 2,45,000/-.
15. The decision relied upon by the counsel for appellants in the matter of Sakshi Greola (supra) is on different facts as it was a case of permanent disability. In the said case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken note of the decision in the case of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 which was also a case of permanent disability. Hence, it is not applicable to the facts of present case where compensation claimed is against the death of a minor child aged about 10 years. 7/7
16. On the basis of discussion and calculation made above, the claimants/appellants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Amount of compensation, if any paid, pursuant to the impugned award shall be deducted. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain as it is.
17. Further, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lakkamma vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797, it is directed that the appellants will not be entitled for the interest on the additional amount of compensation for the delayed period, which is of 50 days.
18. 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 pwn