Chattisgarh High Court
Koushil Kumar Sahu vs Shivajeet Singh on 9 April, 2025
-1-
Digitally
REKHA signed by
SINGH REKHA
2025:CGHC:16777
SINGH
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 317 of 2021
1 - Koushil Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Purshottam Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o
Village- Amlikapa, Post Office- Amora, Police Station - Jarhagaon, Tahsil And
Distt.- Mungeli (Chhattisgarh), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
2 - Smt. Lata Bai Sahu W/o Koushil Kumar Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village-
Amlikapa, Post Office- Amora, Police Station - Jarhagaon, Tahsil And Distt.-
Mungeli (Chhattisgarh), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
3 - Ku. Purnima Sahu D/o Koushil Kumar Sahu Aged About 10 Years Minor
Through Natural Guardian Father Shri Koushil Kumar Sahu, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Village- Amlikapa, Post Office- Amora, Police Station - Jarhagaon, Tahsil And
Distt.- Mungeli (Chhattisgarh), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
... Appellants
versus
1 - Shivajeet Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Singh R/o Pali Road, Shahid Singh, Jyoti
Nagar, Dipka, Tahsil And Distt.- Korba. At Present Mandir Chowk (Chowki Wrongly
Mention In The Cause Title), Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration No. Cg C.G. 10 R 8070).,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Munna Singh S/o Shri Baliram Singh Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Driver,
Main Address Village- Kawalpura, Police Station- Mashrak, Tahsil And Distt.-
Chhapra (Bihar). At Present Gandhi Nagar Sirki, Police Station Dipka, Tahsil And
Distt.- Korba (Chhattisgarh) (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration
No. Cg C.G. 10 R 8070)., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, 2nd Floor,
Rama Trade Center, Near Rajeev Plaza, Near Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsil And
Distt.- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (Insurer Of The Vehicle Bearing Registration No. Cg
C.G. 10 R 8070)., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents
-2-
For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate
For respondent No.3/ : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate
Insurance Company
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
09.04.2025
1) Heard on I.A. No.1, an application for condonation of delay in filing the
instant appeal.
2) Mr. Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants
would submit that there is a delay of 803 days in filing the instant appeal. He
would further submit that as two children of the claimants died in an
accident, the mental status of the appellants was not sound and they could
not approach their counsel for filing the instant appeal within limitation. He
would pray to condone the delay.
3) On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.3 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Dewangan.
4) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
5) Taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Dewangan and the
reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 803
days caused in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.
6) Heard on admission.
7) The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal against the award dated
31.08.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli,
District Mungeli (C.G.) in Claim Case No.73/2016 for enhancement of
-3-
compensation.
8) The facts of the present case are that on 10.10.2016 in a motor accident, two
children namely Harish Kumar Sahu and Kanha Sahu, aged about 7 and 11
years respectively died.
9) The claimants who are parents and sister of the deceased filed a claim case
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming therein compensation
to the tune of Rs.15,50,000/- for the death of each of the children. The driver
and owner were proceeded ex parte. The Insurance Company filed a reply
and denied averments of the claim petition. The parties led evidence.
10) Learned Tribunal appreciating the evidence and documents passed an
award to the tune of Rs.5,25,000/- for the death of each child along with the
interest @ 9% from the date of the application till the date of realization and
thus, awarded a total of Rs.10,50,000/-.
11)Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the learned
Tribunal has passed an award at a lower side. He would further submit that
the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation on other heads.
He would pray to enhance the compensation.
12) On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.3/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr.
Dewangan. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and
proper compensation to the claimants. He would further submit that the age
of one of the deceased was 7 years and another was 11 years. He would
contend the learned Tribunal applied the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and
-4-
others reported in 2014 (1) SCC 244 and thus, he would pray that the
present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
13) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
records.
14) In the matter of Kishan Gopal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras
38, 39 & 40 held as under:-
“38.In our considered view, the aforesaid legal principle laid
down in Lata Wadhwa’s case with all fours is applicable to
the facts and circumstances of the case in hand having
regard to the fact that the deceased was 10 years’ old, who
was assisting the appellants in their agricultural occupation
which is an undisputed fact. We have also considered the
fact that the rupee value has come down drastically from the
year 1994, when the notional income of the non- earning
member prior to the date of accident was fixed at
Rs.15,000/-. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive
would have certainly contributed substantially to the family
of the appellants by working hard.
39. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would be just and
reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs.30,000/-
and further taking the young age of the parents, namely the
mother who was about 36 years old, at the time of accident,
by applying the legal principles laid down in the case of
Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport corporation, (2009) 6 SCC
121, the multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand.
Thus, 30,000 x 15=4,50,000 and 50,000/- under
conventional heads towards loss of love and affection,
funeral expenses, last rites as held in Kerala SRTC vs.
Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176, which is referred to
in Lata Wadhwa’s case and the said amount under the
conventional heads is awarded even in relation to the death
of children between 10 to 15 years old. In this case also we
award Rs. 50,000/- under conventional heads. In our view,
for the aforesaid reasons the said amount would be fair, just
and reasonable compensation to be awarded in favour of
the appellants.
40. The said amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
by applying the law laid down in the case of Municpal
Council of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar
Tragedy, (2011) 14 SCC 481, for the reason that the
Insurance company has been contesting the claim of the
-5-appellants from 1992-2013 without settling their legitimate
claim for nearly about 21 years, if the Insurance company
had awarded and paid just and reasonable compensation to
the appellants the same could have been either invested or
kept in the fixed deposit, then the amount could have
earned five times more than what is awarded today in this
appeal. Therefore, awarding (5 of 5) [CMA-278/2016] 9%
interest on the compensation awarded in favour of the
appellants is legally justified.”
15) Taking into consideration the fact that the age of the deceased were 7 years
and 11 years respectively at the time of the accident and the learned Tribunal
applied the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter
Kishan Gopal (supra) and passed an award to the tune of Rs.5,25,000/- for
each of the minor deceased, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out
for interference with the award passed by the learned Tribunal.
Consequently, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha