Smt. Kaoushaliya Devi Vs Shri Madhusudan Singh

¶1

-1-

¶2

2025:CGHC:22651

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 141 of 2019

¶6

Smt. Kaoushaliya Devi W/o Late Soncharan Rajput Aged About 31 Years R/o- Court Colony Bhagalpur Road, Jashpur, Tahsil And DistrictJashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Appellant(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Shri Madhusudan Singh S/o Late Jhungu Singh Aged About 65 Years R/o- Khajanchi Toli Jashpur Nagar, Police Station- Jashpur, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle)

¶10

2 - Shri Sharad Kumar Manjhi S/o. Ashok Kumar Manjhi Khajanchi Toli, Milan Chowk, Jashpur Nagar, Police Station- Jashpur, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - United India Insurance Company Ltd. Shanti Palace Near Sarla Vila Chakradhar Nagar Chowk, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle)

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

__________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate

¶14

_______________________________________________________

¶15

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶16

Judgment On Board

¶17

09/06/2025

¶18

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.06.11 10:34:16 +0530

¶19

This is the claimant’s appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Additional Motor

¶20

-2-

¶21

Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC) Jashpur (C.G) vide award dated 1^st October 2018 passed in Claim Case No. 26 of 2018.

¶22

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant/claimant filed a claim application under Sections 140 and 166 of the Act of 1988 against the respondent/non-applicants before the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC), Jashpur, pleading therein that on 24/12/2017 Sakshi Rajput went to Kailash Cave in a Bolero vehicle number CG 14 MD-3148 with her father Soncharan Rajput, mother Kaushalya Rajput, her brother Nishat and other persons. While returning from there, in the evening, the driver of the Bolero vehicle, driving the vehicle rashly and negligently caused an accident, due to which, Sakshi Rajput, her father Soncharan Rajput and Gunjan Paikra got serious injuries. When they were being taken to Hospital for treatment, they died on the way. It was pleaded in the claim application that deceased Sakshi was 11 years old at the time of the accident and was a brilliant student of class 5^th . In the same accident, Soncharan Rajput (father of deceased Sakshi Rajput) also died, due to which the applicant had to face immense pain and mental agony. The deceased was the only daughter of the applicant. Appellant prayed for total compensation amount as Rs. 17,25,000/- due to death of her minor daughter Sakshi Rajput from the non-applicants.

¶23

In their written statement, non-applicant No. 1 and 2 stated that on the date of incident i.e. 24/12/2017, in the evening, non-applicant No. 2 was driving Bolero vehicle number CG 14 MD-3148 carefully towards Bagicha via Narayanpur and was coming to Jashpur and after crossing

¶24

-3-

¶25

village Mayali, before a turn, suddenly there was some mechanical fault in the said Bolero vehicle, due to which, steering of the vehicle suddenly got jammed and the vehicle became uncontrolled and collided with a bush on the left side, due to which, accident occurred. The accident was not the result of negligence of non-applicant No. 2. On the date of accident, offending vehicle was insured with nonapplicant No. 3 /United India Insurance Company, hence, liability to pay amount of compensation, if any, is on non-applicant No. 3.

¶26

Non-applicant No.3, in its written statement, while denying the averment of claimant, has stated that the claimant has stated the age of the deceased to be 11 years, but she has not produced any document related to the age. As per the policy conditions, after the accident, non-applicants were supposed to inform the insurance company about the accident, but no such information was given to the insurance company, which is a violation of the policy conditions. At the time of accident, 11 persons were travelling in the offending vehicle. The said vehicle was being driven by non-applicant no. 2 Sharad Manjhi. While returning from Kailash Cave, he drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and caused an accident, due to which Gunjan Paikra, Soncharan Rajput and Sakshi Rajput died and the rest were injured. There were more people in the offending vehicle than its seating capacity, whereas, in the RC book and insurance policy of the vehicle, seating capacity is clearly mentioned as 07, hence, the liability to pay amount of compensation lies with non-applicant No. 1 and 2.

¶27

-4-

¶28

Learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, has held that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle i.e. non-applicant No.2 in which Sakshi Rajput aged 11 years suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved and accordingly calculated and awarded a total sum of Rs.2,85,000/- as compensation, holding liability to pay the amount of compensation upon non-applicants/ respondents jointly and severally.

¶29

Relying on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kishan Gopal & Anr. Vs. Lala & Ors (2014) 1 SCC 244 wherein compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- has been awarded in case of death of a child, it is submitted by learned counsel for appellant that compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal in the case at hand is not just and reasonable, it is on lower side and, hence, it is required to be enhanced. He further submits that amount awarded by Claims Tribunal under other heads is also on lower side and it requires to be enhanced appropriately.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposing the submission of learned counsel for the appellant submits that amount awarded by Claims Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court as the deceased was only 11 years old, dependent on his parents and was not an earning member. The statement made by the appellant is based only on future possibilities.

¶31

-5-

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶33

The only point which requires consideration of this Court is whether the Claims Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation to claimant or not ?

¶34

In the matter of Kishan Gopal (supra) , Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of death of a child aged about 10 years, considering its earlier decision in the matter of Lata Wadhwa & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 197 awarded an amount of Rs.5 Lakh as compensation by assessing income of deceased on notional basis as Rs.30,000/- per annum 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 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.

¶35

Similarly, in the case of Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto alias Nemchand Mahto & Ors. (2023) 1 SCC 204, Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the death of a 12 years child and reiterating and applying the ratio laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) has awarded a sum of Rs.5 Lakh by adopting the income and multiplier as applied by the learned Claims Tribunal in that case.

¶36

-6-

¶37

In the case at hand, admittedly the death of child took place in the year 2017 and in between 1994 to 2017 the value of rupee has drastically come down, which is to be taken into consideration while awarding amount of compensation. This apart, claimant/appellant herein is also entitled for compensation under the head- loss of consortium.

¶38

Considering overall facts and circumstances of case and law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kishan Gopal (supra) & Meena Devi (supra), in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be served if a lump-sum amount Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded as compensation to claimants/appellants along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of application till its realization.

¶39

On the basis of above discussion, the claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- instead of Rs.2,85,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.

¶40

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶43

Praveen

Smt. Kaoushaliya Devi v. Shri Madhusudan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kaoushaliya Devi v. Shri Madhusudan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Singh Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Naihar Sai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Gyanwati Chouhan Vs Ishatdev Kushwaha

Smt. Vandana Mishra Vs Ishatdev Kushwaha

Balram Kumar Sao Vs State of Chhattisgarh