The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sahil Yadav

¶1

1

NIRMALA RAO

2026:CGHC:1144

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 185 of 2024

¶7

1 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through The Branch Manager, Rama Trade Centre, 1st Floor, Near Old Bus Satnd, Rajiv Plaza, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Scorpio No. - C.G.- 16/f/8765)

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Sahil Yadav S/o Mahasingh Yadav Aged About 6 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Basin Path, Village Jatadeori, Post Amadand, Tehsil Pendra, Amadand, District- GaurelaPendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh, Through Natural Guardian Smt. Chandrwati, W/o - Mahasingh Yadav, Aged 29 Years, Ward No. 12, Basin Path, Village Jatadeori, Post Amadand, Tehsil Pendra, Amadand, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh (Claimant)

¶11

2 - Santram S/o Nemsai Maria R/o Bacharwar Maria, Mohalla Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Scorpio No. - C.G.- 16/f/8765)

¶12

3 - Chandana Chakrawarty D/o Ram Prasanya Banerjee R/o Vineet Bhawan, Gaurela, Pendra Road, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Scorpio No. - C.G.- 16/f/8765)

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellant/ Insurance Company: Shri Bennoon, Advocate on behalf of Shri R.N. Pusty, Advocate. For Respondents : None though served.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶16

08.01.2026

¶17

2

¶18

The appellant/ Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the quantum part of the award passed by the learned 10 th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 1717 of 2021, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.10,02,360/- alongwith interest @9% per annum on account of injuries sustained by the claimant, aged about 5 years.

¶19

The facts, in brief, are that on 29.10.2021 at about 1:00 pm, Opposite School Amadand, Pendra, Police Station Pendra, District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi, the driver of the offending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No.C.G. 16-F 8765, while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently dashed against the claimant – Sahil Yadav, a boy aged about 5 years. As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained a crush injury over his right leg including fractures of ankle and tibia bones. He remain hospitalized for a considerable period. The claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40% and a certificate in this regard was issued by the Medical Board vide Ex.P/13. The Insurance Company filed its reply, the parties led their evidence and thereafter, an award was passed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the disability assessed by the Medical Board was progressive in nature. He would contend that Dr. H.K. Tawar (AW-2) in his evidence, admitted that the nature of disability was likely to be improved and that the claimant was advised for reexamination after two years. He would submit that the learned Tribunal considered the functional disability as 30% and granted compensation accordingly, which is an erroneous finding. He

¶21

3

¶22

would further contend that the learned Tribunal applied a multiplier of 20 according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. He would contend that in the matter of Reshma Kumari and Others, vs. Madan Mohan and Another reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in cases where the age of the deceased is upto 15 years irrespective of whether the calim is filed under Section 163A or Section 166 under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra) should be followed. He would contend that the learned Tribunal should have applied multiplier of 15 instead of 20. He would pray to modify the award accordingly.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection.

¶24

The claimant exhibited x-ray as Ex.P/12, the disability certificate as Ex.P/13 and the photographs of the injuries sustained by him Ex.P/11. Perusal of the photographs Ex.P/11 would show that the claimant suffered serious injuries over ankle including fracture. He remained hospitalized for a considerable period. The disability certificate to the extent of 40% was issued by the Medical Board on 23.3.2022. Dr. H.K. Tawar, a member of the Medical Board, has proved the contents of the disability certificate. In disability certificate it is stated that the condition is progressive and likely to be improved and reassessment was recommended after a period of two years. The award was passed by the learned Tribunal on 20.10.2023 before completion of the said two-

¶25

4

¶26

year period and therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly considered the functional disability to the extent of 30% looking to the injuries sustained by the claimant and therefore, the contention made by counsel for the appellant with regard to nature of disability sustained by the claimant cannot be accepted.

¶27

Learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 20 looking to the age of the claimant, applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Reshma Kumari (supra) in para 43.2 has categorically held that where the age of the deceased is up to 15 years the appropriate multiplier would be 15 and same is reproduced herein below:

¶28

“43.2. In cases where the age of the deceased is up to 15 years, irrespective of Section 166 or Section 163-A under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column (6) of the Table in Sarla Verma should be followed.”

¶29

The present is a injury case but the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would apply in toto . Learned Tribunal should have applied a multiplier of 15 looking to the age of the claimant. Accordingly, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby modified and the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is modified from 20 to 15 and the compensation is revisited herein below:

¶30

5

¶31

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs.9,200 x 12 = Rs. 1,10,400/-	Rs. 9,200 x 12 = Rs. 1,10,400/-
2.	Future Prospect	(40%) (44,160/-) (1,10,400 + 44,160 = 1,54,560/-	40% - 44,160/- (1,10,400 + 44,160 = 1,54,560/-)
3.	Disability	(30%) (46,368/-)	(30%) (46,368/-)
4.	Multiplier	(x) 20 = (46,368 x 20 = 9,27,360/-)	(x) 15 = Rs. (46,368 x 15 = 6,95,520/-)
5.	Transportation	Rs.10,000/-	Rs. 10,000/-
6.	Special Diet	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.20,000/-
7.	Pain and Suffering	Rs. 25,000/-	Rs. 25,000/-
8.	Attendant	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.20,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 10,02,360/-	Rs. 7,70,520/-

¶32

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.10,02,360/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reduced to Rs.7,70,520/- . The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of the modified amount, as reduced by this Court, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶33

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.

¶34

The interim order, if any, granted earlier is hereby vacated.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

¶37

Judge

¶38

Nimmi

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sahil Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sahil Yadav

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

Branch Manager-Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Malti Kurre

Awadh Kishore Vs Harjeet Singh

Cholamandlam General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Anita Netam

Girish Kumar Mishra Vs Aaditya Kumar Pradhan

Prakash Patel Vs Omprakash Gendre

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Rashmi Devi