Chattisgarh High Court
The New India Insurance Company Ltd vs Sukhram on 23 July, 2025
1
Digitally
VISHAKHA signed by
NAFR
BEOHAR VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1172 of 2018
Order Reserved on 11.07.2025
Order Delivered on 23.07.2025
1 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager,
Branch Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja
(Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
.. Appellant
versus
1 - Sukhram Mastram Aged About 40 Years Cast Gond, Resident
Village Salka, Tehsil Premnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Rampatia Bai, W/o Sukhram, Aged About 38 Years Cast Gond,
Resident Village Salka, Tehsil Premnagar, District Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Ravijeet Singh Chhabra, W/o Manjeet Singh Chhabra, Aged About
50 Years Agrasen Ward No. 38, Kundla City Ambikapur, District
Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Naseer Khan, W/o Mohammad Sahabuddin Khan, Aged About 38
Years R/o Village Domhat(Pratappur) Thana Chandura, District
Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant :- Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate
2
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anshul R. Shrivastava,
Advocate
———————————————————————————————–
SB- Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
CAV Order
1. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), has been filed by
The New India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as
‘the appellant/insurer’), being aggrieved by the final award dated
March 6, 2018, passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) (Presiding
Officer – Ku. Sangh Pushpa Bhatpahari) in Claim Case No.
67/2017, (Sukhram and others vs. Ravijeet and others). The
appellant seeks to set aside or modify the impugned award on
various grounds, including the erroneous assessment of
dependency, income, future prospects, and consortium, the
excessive interest awarded, and the non-joinder of necessary
parties.
2. As per averments made in the claim petition, on May 14, 2017, at
about 3:30 AM, minor Dilharan Singh (12 years old) and others
were returning from a wedding in a Maruti Omni van and on way,
it collided with a trailer bearing registration No. CG 15/A.C./4215
driven by Naseer Khan/respondent No.4 herein. The accident
resulted in four deaths, including Dilharan Singh. His parents,
Sukhram and Rampatia Bai, filed a claim petition under Section
3
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of
Rs.23,30,000/-. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence
available on record, has awarded a compensation to the tune of
Rs.10,78,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal by the
Appellant/Insurance Company.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company submits
that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) erroneously
awarded compensation to the parents of the 12-year-old
deceased minor, Dilharan Singh, on several grounds: firstly, that
the parents (aged 40 and 38) were not dependents of the minor;
secondly, the tribunal wrongly assumed the minor’s income at Rs.
6,000/- per month without any documentary evidence; thirdly, the
award of “future prospects” to a 12-year-old was incorrect;
fourthly, the tribunal wrongly awarded “consortium” to the parents;
fifthly, the interest rate of 9% yearly from the date of application
was improperly granted; and finally, the entire claim petition
should have been dismissed due to the non-impleading of the
owner, insurance company, and driver of the Maruti van as
necessary parties. Therefore, the appellant seeks to set aside the
impugned award and be exonerated from payment of
compensation, with an order for reimbursement of any amount
already paid.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submit
that the Motor Accident’s Claims Tribunal’s award for the death of
4
minor Dilharan Singh is just and legal, emphasizing that
compensation for a minor’s death extends beyond strict financial
dependency to cover the immense non-pecuniary loss to parents,
as recognized by Indian legal precedents. They would argue that
the notional income of Rs. 6,000/- per month for a 12-year-old is
reasonable, reflecting future earning potential, and that awarding
“future prospects” and “filial consortium” to parents for the loss of
a child are established legal principles. Furthermore, the 9%
interest rate is a standard compensation mechanism, and the non-
impleading of the Maruti van’s parties should not invalidate the
rightful claim against the trailer’s insurer, as the Motor Vehicles Act
prioritizes victims’ compensation over technicalities.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. Admittedly, in this case, the deceased was a minor, approximately
12 years old, and it is undisputed that the claimants are the
parents of the deceased child. A central question in this appeal is
the dependency of major persons (parents) on a minor. While
motor vehicle accident legislation is benevolent, Tribunals and
Courts must adhere to basic principles to ensure a pragmatic and
realistic computation of compensation. It’s acknowledged that
money cannot fully compensate for the loss of a life; however, an
effort must be made to award just compensation with a uniform
approach, striking a balance between excessive windfalls and
inadequate pittances. Adjudicating such matters is challenging,
5
hence the endeavor to standardize computations, which now
includes the addition of future prospects based on proven present
income.
7. However, in the present matter, the deceased, being only about
12 years old, had no income. Therefore, it cannot be argued that
the parents were financially dependent upon the minor deceased.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meena Devi v. Nunu
Chand Mahto, (2023) 1 SCC 204 as also in the similar matters
therein, has consistently held that in cases involving the death of a
child, a lump sum of Rs.5 lakhs is to be awarded. As the
deceased was a minor, it appears that the Tribunal erred in law
when calculating compensation for the death of the minor.
Specifically, in cases concerning minor deceased individuals who
succumbed to injuries from an accident, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has ruled that Rs.5 lakhs is the appropriate amount,
covering all heads of compensation.
8. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in matters such as
Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 & National Insurance Company
Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 has
clarified that dependency, future prospects, and consortium are
outside the scope of computation for claim petitions involving a
minor deceased.
6
9. Considering these aspects, this Court concludes that the learned
Claims Tribunal erred in law by computing compensation based
on dependency, future prospects, and consortium, which
contravenes the established legal precedents set by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is
allowed in part. The claimants are entitled to get a sum of ₹5
lakhs on account of the death of their minor son, aged about 12
years. This amount will be paid along with interest at a rate of 9%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition (July 20,
2017) until its realization, as previously directed in the award.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha
[ad_1]
Source link