Chattisgarh High Court
Rekhram @ Bholaram Sahu vs Pavan Kumar Sahu on 10 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:31844
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 163 of 2019
1 - Rekhram @ Bholaram Sahu S/o Lt. Phoolsingh Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village Sher, Post Kanekera, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
2 - Smt. Savitri Bai Sahu W/o Rekhram @ Bholaram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o
Village Sher, Post Kanekera, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
3 - Minor Ku. Indu Sahu D/o Rekhram @ Bholaram Sahu Aged About 11 Years
(Appellant No. 3 Being Minor On Behalf Of Through Her Legal Guardian Father
Rekhram @ Bholaram Sahu Appellant No. 1) R/o Village Sher, Post Kanekera,
Police Station, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District :
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
... Appellants
Versus
1 - Pavan Kumar Sahu S/o Vishnu Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sher,
Post Kanekera, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
(Driver Of Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. Cg 04 D 0373), District :
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
2 - Omkar Prasad Sahu S/o Jagat Ram Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Village
Sher, Post Kanekera, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
(Registered Owner Of Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. Cg 04 D 0373),
District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Company Limited, Through
The Branch Manager, Branch Office, Vivek Vardhan Sewa Ashram Complex, Shop
No. 07, Nai Mandi Road, Mahasamund, Police Station, Tahsil And District
SHUBHAM
DEY
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
DEY
2
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. Cg
04 D 0373), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R.
Patankar, Advocate
S.B.: Hon’ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order On Board
10/07/2025
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the
amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its
award dated 14.05.2018 passed by the 1 st Additional/Upper Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.)
in Claim Case No. H-63/2017 whereby, the learned Claims Tribunal
allowed the application in part and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/-
against the death of a child aged about 8 years.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 04.03.2017, when Dagesh Sahu
(minor) was playing beside the road at Village Sher at around 02:00
P.M., at that time, the offending Tractor bearing Registration No. CG 04
D 0373 which was being driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed Dagesh Sahu and caused accident. In the
accident Dagesh Sahu suffered grievous injuries and died. Subsequent
to the said accident, an FIR was lodged bearing Crime No. 128/2017,
P.S. Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund for the offences punishable
under Section 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The applicants/claimants have filed their claim application before the
learned Claims Tribunal pleading that the deceased child i.e. Dagesh
Sahu on the date of accident was 08 years old and studying in Class –
II. The applicants/claimants being the parents and minor sister of the
3
deceased have claimed compensation of Rs. 12,20,000/- from the non-
applicants before the learned Claims Tribunal.
4. The Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2 submitted reply denying the pleadings of
claim application and pleaded that the accident was not caused by the
offending Tractor bearing CG NO. 04 D 0373. It was pleaded that on
the date of accident, the vehicle was insured with the Non-Applicant
No. 3 and therefore, if the Tribunal records a finding that the offending
vehicle was involved in the said accident, then the liability to satisfy the
amount of compensation is upon the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance
Company.
5. The Non-Applicant No. 3 opposing the pleadings made by the
applicants/claimants in the claim application have submitted reply
pleading that Non-Applicant No. 1 was not possessing valid and
effective driving license, there was no permit as such, the vehicle was
driven in breach of conditions of insurance policy. The said accident
occurred due to the negligence of the minor child and therefore, Non-
Applicant No. 3 is not liable to satisfy the amount of compensation
6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal
erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 2,75,000/- only against the death of
an 08 year old child. He submits that according to the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. Vs. Lala &
Ors. reported in 2014 (1) SCC 244, learned Claims Tribunal ought to
have awarded Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation to the
appellant/claimants. He further relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kusmi Devi Vs. Md. Kasim and Anr.
reported in 2023 () TAC 17 (SC) and contended that in addition to lump
sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, the appellants are also entitled for
4
a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as global enhancement. He further submits
that as the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the
Respondents No. 3/Insurance Company. Therefore, the case be heard
finally at the motion stage.
7. Learned counsel for the respective respondents do not dispute the
submission of the counsel for the appellant with regard to fastening of
liability upon the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company to satisfy
amount of compensation. They further oppose the submission on the
prayer made for enhancement of the amount of compensation. It is
argued that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned
Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any
interference.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and and also perused the
record of the claim case as also, the miscellaneous appeal.
9. 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 ill-fated vehicle and the
liability fastened upon the Respondent No. 3 is also not in dispute.
10. The date of accident is 04.03.2017. The application seeking
compensation is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988.
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.
5,00,000/- as compensation by assessing income of deceased on notional
basis as Rs.30,000/- p.a. 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 though in case of
5
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 @ Menchand
Mahto & Ors. 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. 5,00,000/- by adopting
the income and multiplier as applied by the learned Claims Tribunal case
of Kishan Chand (Supra).
13. Recently, in case of Kusmi (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing
with grant of compensation in case of death of child, granted a sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- as a global enhancement. Relevant paragraphs of the
judgment passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Kusmi (Supra) are as
under:-
14. “3. In respect of the death of a three years old child in
the accident which occurred on 25.08.1994, the Motors
Accidents Claims Tribunal (For short ‘MACT”) through its
Award dated 13.02.2015 had granted the compensation of
Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum. The High
Court through its judgment dated 13.12.2018 has enhanced
it to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as a global compensation.
15. 4. In a matter of the present nature where the regular
parameters of determining the compensation cannot be
considered due to the uncertainties in life of a child and as held
by this Court, the lump sum compensation is being awarded.
Without prejudice to the contentions all the parties and in the
6
interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to grant a further
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as global enhancement which shall be
deposited by the respondent No.2-Insurance Company before
the MACT concerned within a period of three weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, whereupon the
amount shall be disbursed to the claimant.”
16. A bare reading of above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
Kusmi (Supra) would show that the compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-
granted by the High Court in case of death of three years old child in a
road traffic accident, Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted a further sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- as a global enhancement. Meaning thereby, Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that total global compensation for the death of a
three year old child is Rs.6,00,000/-.
17. Considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kishan Gopal (Supra) and Meena Devi (Supra) and Kusmi (Supra),
wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- as
global compensation against the death of a minor child aged about 03 years
and considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case as
also the age of the child to be 08 years, in the opinion of this Court, learned
Claims Tribunal erred in awarding the amount of compensation as Rs.
2,75,000/- in total to the appellant/claimant which is not sustainable in the
eyes of law.
18. Accordingly, the amount of compensation computed by the learned Claims
Tribunal as Rs. 2,75,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 6,00,000/-. Now the
appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the amount of compensation to the
tune of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The amount of compensation shall carry interest
at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of application till its
realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award
shall remain intact.
7
19. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants as compensation
shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated
above.
20. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award
stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-Sd/–/-/——–/–/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Dey
[ad_1]
Source link