Allowed

Narayan Dutta v. Uttam Kumar Mandal

Chhattisgarh HC21 Mar 2025MAC/81/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parents appealed enhancement of compensation for the death of their 3-year-old daughter in a road accident. Relying on Supreme Court precedents fixing Rs.5,00,000 for deaths of children below 12 years, the High Court enhanced compensation from Rs.2,00,000 to Rs.5,00,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.2,00,000 to Rs.5,00,000; insurer directed to pay additional Rs.3,00,000 within 60 days; no order as to costs.

Narayan Dutta Vs Uttam Kumar Mandal — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI

¶3

2025:CGHC:13884

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 81 of 2021

¶7

1. Narayan Dutta S/o Makhan Dutta, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village P.V. 59, Yashwant Nagar Thana And Tehsil Pakhanjur, District Uttar Baster Kanker (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

2. Smt. Sushma Dutta W/o Narayan Dutta, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village P.V. 59, Yashwant Nagar Thana And Tehsil Pakhanjur, District Uttar Baster Kanker (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

... Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

1. Uttam Kumar Mandal S/o Kamal Mandal Aged About 53 Years R/o Village P.V. 89, Thana And Tehsil Pakhanjur, District Uttar Baster Kanker (Chhattisgarh).................Owner/driver

¶12

2. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Akashvani Road, M.P. Tower First Floor, Nayapara, Jagdalpur, District Baster (Chhattisgarh).............Insurer

¶13

	... Respondents
For Appellants	: Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1	: Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent No. 2	: Mohd. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board

¶15

22/03/2025

¶16

1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation against the award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Baster, Kanker in Claim Case No. 32/2019 dated 02.03.2020.

¶17

¶18

2. Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the driver/owner of the offending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No. CG-17 C 1720 dashed the deceased namely, Disha Dutta, aged about 03 years and 06 months on 19.05.2018, driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently. She would contend that the claimants, who are parents (mother and father) of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,03,000/-. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal after considering the evidence, passed an award to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- only with interest @ 08% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim case. She has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kishan Gopal and Another Vs. Lala and Others , reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 and the matter of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto alias Nemchand Mahato , reported in AIR Online 2022 SC 532 .

¶19

3. On the other hand, Mohd. Azad Siddiqui and Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose.

¶20

4. Mohd. Azad Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/Insurance Company would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. He would contend that the age of the deceased was 03 years and 06 months and compensation cannot be calculated according to Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act. He would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶21

5. Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/driver/owner would support the contention made by Mohd. Siddiqui.

¶22

¶23

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.

¶24

7. In Kishan Gopal (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-39 held as under:-

¶25

“ 39. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would be just and reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs.30,000 and further taking the young age of the parents, namely, mother who was about 36 years old, at the time of accident, by applying the legal principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand. Thus, 30,000 x 15 = 4,50,000 and 50,000 under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites as held in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176, which is referred to in Lata Wadhwa case, (2001) 8 SCC 197 and the said amount under the conventional heads is awarded even in relation to the death of children between 10 to 15 years old. In this case also we award Rs.50,000 under conventional heads. In our view, for the aforesaid reasons the said amount would be fair, just and reasonable compensation to be awarded in favour of the appellants.”

¶26

8. In Meena Devi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-10 held as

¶27

under:-

¶28

“ 10. Thus relying upon the observation, it is said that in place of issuing any guidelines for determination of compensation in case of death of a child, it may be left open to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case of M.S. Grewal (supra), 14 school students died due to drowning in a river. This Court noticing that the students were belonging to upper middle class background, however awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. Thereafter in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra), a child aged about 10 years died in a road accident took place on 19.7.1992, this Court made departure from the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act and accepted the notional income of Rs.30,000/- in place of Rs.15,000/- applying the analogy that the value of rupee has come down drastically since 1994 when the notional income of Rs.15000/- was fixed in IInd Schedule of the MV Act. However accepting the notional income as Rs.30,000/- and as per the age of the parents i.e. 36 years, the loss of dependency was calculated applying the

¶29

¶30

multiplier of 15 at Rs.4,50,000 and a sum of Rs.50,000/was awarded under conventional heads awarding a total sum of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-”

¶31

9. Admittedly, in the present appeal, the age of the deceased was 03 years and the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/-, whereas the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Kishan Gopal (supra) and Meena Devi (supra) has held that in the case of the death of the child below the age of 12 years, proper compensation would be Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶32

10. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Kishan Gopal (supra) and Meena Devi (supra), I am inclined to enhance the compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to receive an additional compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Respondent No. 2 shall make payment of compensation within a period of 60 days. However, the rest of the conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶33

11. As a result, the appeal is allowed . No order as to costs.

¶34

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶35

vatti

Narayan Dutta v. Uttam Kumar Mandal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Dutta v. Uttam Kumar Mandal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Shah Vs Madhodas Chaturvedi

Bramha Shankar Pal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kisan Rice Mill Vs Bhawar Singh

Smt. Sukwara Bai Vs Smt. Savitri Bai

Dhansai @ Butu Yadav Vs Ajay Mishra

Shyamlal Vs Rambai