Bharat Purle Vs Kamal Prasad Patle

1 - Kamal Prasad Patle S/o Shri Ramdas @ Banshilal Patle Aged About 50 Years R/o Birgaon, Thana City Kotwali Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) Pin 495334, (Driver Of Motor Vehicle No. C.G. / 28 / M / 8688)

¶12

2 - Tarjan Koshle S/o Shri Bhishma Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Deori (S), Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.), Pin - 495334, (Owner Of Motor Vehicle No. C.G. / 28 / M / 8688)

¶13

3 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager Walford Azon, Near The Fafadih Chowk, Bilaspur Road Raipur 106, 107, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.), (Insurance Company Of Motor Vehicle No. C.G. / 28 / M / 8688)

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Appellants/Claimants : Shri Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶17

2

¶18

26.11.2025

¶19

The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli in Claim Case No. 14 of 2023 dated 16.4.2024, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum on account of death of Prateek alias Pradeep Purle, aged about 12 years.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that on 26.1.2023, while the deceased was returning from the market, the driver of the motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G. 28 M 8688 by driving rashly and negligently dashed him. Resultantly, he sustained grievous injuries and while he was taken to the hospital, he died. He would submit that the age of the deceased was 12 years and was a student. He would contend that the claimants, who are parents of the deceased, claimed a sum of Rs.20,70,000/-. He would submit that the learned Tribunal considered the age of the deceased to be 12 years and awarded a lump-sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. He would contend that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is erroneous, as the Tribunal treated the deceased non-earning member and also failed to award the compensation under other conventional heads. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel versus Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 871 and in the matter of Thangavel and others Vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1649. He would pray to enhance the compensation.

¶21

3

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection.

¶24

The learned Tribunal has awarded a fix sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the claimants. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra) a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment. It is further held that in such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises, relevant para 9 is reproduced hereinbelow :-

¶25

“9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the Courts below. In the present case, it is evident that the Courts below have failed to take into account the monthly income of the appellant while determining the quantum of compensation. It is now a wellentrenched and consistently reiterated principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a nonearning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very lease, the minimum wages payable to a

¶26

4

¶27

skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises. The said observation was rendered by this Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors.(2020) 4 SCC 413, and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692. ”

¶28

In the matter of Thangavel (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- without any deduction and applied a multiplier of 15 looking to the age of the mother of the deceased and further awarded compensation on conventional heads.

¶29

In the present case, age of the appellants at the time of filing of claim case was 40 years and 38 years, it would be appropriate to consider the age of the father to apply appropriate multiplier. Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Thangavel (supra), the monthly income of the deceased is assessed to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- without any deduction for personal expenses; looking to the age of the father of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier would be 15. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and for loss of consortium. Thus, the compensation requires recomputation and same is being revisited

¶30

herein-below:-

¶31

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	30,000/- (Yearly)	Rs. 5,000 x 12 = Rs. 60,000/-
2.	Multiplier	(x) 15 (30,000 x 15 = Rs. 4,50,000/-	(x) 15 = Rs. 9,00,000/-
3.	Loss of Estate		Rs. 16,500/-

¶32

5

¶33

4.	Funeral expenses		Rs. 16,500/-
5.	Loss of consortium (for appellant No. 1)	Rs.50,000/-	Rs. 44,000/-
6.	Loss of consortium (for appellant No. 2)		Rs. 44,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 5,00,000/-	Rs. 10,21,000/-

¶34

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 10,21,000 / - . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 5,00,000 / -, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 5,21,000 /- with interest at the rate of 7% and the claimants shall be entitled to get the entire amount of compensation assessed by this Court i.e. Rs. 5,21,000/- without any deduction. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.

¶35

Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed.

¶36

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

Nimmi

Bharat Purle v. Kamal Prasad Patle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Purle v. Kamal Prasad Patle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Bharti Sahu

Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Leelavati

Jageshwari Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vishwanath Singh (Died through Lrs) Vs Laxmi Kunwar (Died) through Lrs

Kumari Chandrasheela @ Jayshree Sethiya Vs Manoj Kumar Soni

Smt. Hemlata Verma Vs Rameshwar Prasad Navrange