Chattisgarh High Court
Smt.Bindeshwari And Anr vs Sapan Verma @ Chhotu And Anr on 13 April, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No. 1273 of 2014
1. Smt. Bindeshwari w/o Manoj Khatri aged about 32 years
2. Manoj Khatri S/o Damodarlal aged about 37 years
Both tare residence of Santoshi ward Jagdalpur District Bastar C.G.
------Appellants
VERSUS
1. Sapan Verma @ Chhotu S/o B.N. Verma aged about 29 years R/o Near
Babaram dev Mandir Santoshi ward Jagdalpur District Bastar C.G.
----Driver
2. Ramkrishna Yadav S/o late H.S. Yadav [DELETED]
a. Raja Yadav S/o late Ramkrishna Yadav, Resident of opposite 1 st milestone,
Dongaripara Sahid Dundadhur ward Post Jagdalpur, District Bastar
Chhattisgarh
-------Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate.
For Respondent 1&2 : None.
Hon'ble Shri P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
13/04/2021
1. Legality and propriety of the impugned award dated 05.07.2014 passed by
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh (for
short "Claims Tribunal") in claim case no. 66/2013 is put to challenge in this
appeal.
2. Relevant facts disposal of this appeal are that, on 19.01.2012, at about 11:00
am when Sunaina Malik was going to nearby Anganbadi school along with
her mother, one motor cycle bearing registration no. CG17J6963 (henceforth
"offending vehicle"), driven by non-applicant 1 rashly and negligently dashed
minor Sunaina Malik. In the said accident, she suffered grievous injuries over
her person, she was immediately taken to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, from
where, she was referred to higher medical centre at Raipur, but on the way,
she succumbed to injuries.
3. Appellants-claimants who are parents of the deceased minor filed an
application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking
compensation of Rs. 15,65,000/-, pleading therein that on the date of accident
minor deceased was aged about 2 years and 3 months, they have incurred
transportation expenses of Rs. 15,000/-; and claimed compensation on
different heads.
4. Non-applicant 1 submitted reply to the claim application, while denying the
pleadings made therein, it was further pleaded that non-applicant 1 was not
involved in the accident, false and fabricated case has been registered
against him, as such, he is not entitled for payment of any amount of
compensation.
5. Non-applicant 2 denied the pleadings made in the claim application, it was
further pleaded that he was owner of offending vehicle which has been falsely
involved in the case, as such, he is not entitled to payment of any amount of
compensation.
6. Learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on
record by the respective parties allowed the application in part and awarded
total sum of Rs. 55,000/- as compensation.
7. Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, learned counsel for the appellants submits that
learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding very meagre amount of
compensation. He submits that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 50,000/-
against the death of minor girl child of the appellants and Rs. 5,000/- towards
funeral expenses, overlooking the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Kishan Gopal v. Lala and others reported in (2014) 1
SCC 244, wherein Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 5,00,000/- as total
compensation and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
8. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent 1, though served.
9. During the pendency of the appeal, Respondent 2 died and his son has been
substituted as legal representative. Notice through speed post was sent to
Respondent 2(a) on 13.01.2021. When the case is listed for hearing today ie.
13.04.2021, office report shows that the notice is awaited. As the notices
have been sent to Respondent 2(a) through speed post, we declare the
service of notice to be completed under the provisions of proviso to Rule 167
of High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 as deemed service.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused
the record.
11. The impugned award fixing liability upon Respondents 1 and 2 is not put to
challenge by them. It is the appeal for enhancement of amount of
compensation only.
12. On the date of accident, age of minor girl deceased Sunaina was 2 years, as
mentioned in post mortem report Ext. A-3, which is not in dispute. In the
cases of death of minor child the Hon'ble Supreme Court has accepted the
law enunciated in the case of Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC
197 for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation for the child
failing between the age group of 5-10 years and 10-15 years and it is held
that in case of death of a child between 5-10 years, amount of compensation
would be 1.5 lacs and Rs. 50,000/- for other conventional heads.
13. In another case of Puttamma and others v. KL Narayana Reddy and
another, (2013) 15 SCC 45, Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering its
earlier judgment, considered the award of compensation for death of minor
child in different category ie. up to the age of 5 years, amount of
compensation be Rs. 1 lac and above 5 years, amount of compensation be
Rs. 1.5 lac and and held thus:
"58. The Central Government was bestowed with
duties to amend the Second Schedule in view of
Section 163-A(3), but it failed to do so for 19 years in
spite of repeated observations of this Court. For the
reasons recorded above, we deem it proper to issue
specific directions to the Central Government
through the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport
and Highways to make proper amendments to the
Second Schedule table keeping in view the present
cost of living, subject to amendment of the Second
Schedule as proposed or may be made by
Parliament. Accordingly, we direct the Central
Government to do so immediately. Till such
amendment is made by the Central Government in
exercise of power vested under sub- section (3) of
Section 163-A of the 1988 Act or amendment is
made by Parliament, we hold and direct that for
children up to the age of 5 years shall be entitled for
a fixed compensation of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one
lakh) and persons more than 5 years of age shall be
entitled for a fixed compensation of Rs.1,50,000
(Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand) or the amount
may be determined in terms of the Second Schedule
whichever is higher. Such amount is to be paid if any
application is filed under Section 163-A of the 1988
Act."
14. In the case of Kishan Gopal (supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel
for the appellants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the case where
the deceased minor child was aged above 10 years and was assisting his
father in agricultural activities. In the facts of the case, appellants would not
get any benefit of the ruling of Supreme Court in case of Kishan Gopal
(supra).
15. In the facts of the case where the age of the deceased minor girl child was 2
years, we are of the considered view that the appellants are entitled for
compensation of Rs. 1 lac against the loss of life of minor girl child of
appellants. Claimants will further be entitled for Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of
filial consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards
loss of estate.
16. Now the appellants-claimants shall be entitled for Rs.1,70,000/-
[Rs.1,00,000+Rs.40,000+Rs.15,000+Rs.15,000] as total compensation.
Other conditions of the award shall remain intact.
17. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to
the extent as indicated herein above.
Sd/- Sd/-
(P.R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Pawan
