^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Singj^Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. M.A.(C)No.210of2008 Appellant Insurer Respondents Claimants ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai, through its Legal Manager, V.R.PIaza, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Versys 1. Smt. Santoshi Bai, W/o Shri Nandu Ram Gond,Aged about 26 years, 2. Shankar Lal Gond, S/o Shri Nandu Ram Gond, aged about 7 years, through her guardian/mother, Smt. Santoshi Bai. Both resident of Village Bandha, (Bhaura Kachar), Chowki Juna Para, P.S. Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Shri Ranjit Kumar Reddy, S/o Shri R. Sudhakar Reddy, aged about 29 years, resident of Ramnathpuram, P.S.Kotta, Kota, District Mahbubnagar, Andhra Pradesh, presently resident of Kargikalan, P.S. Kota, district Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (DRIVER) 4. M/s Sevarth Cable Blowing Company, Office at Raj Mahal, Delux Restaurant, New Colony, Maurn Gurgaon, Haryana, Through Shri Balbir Singh Saini, resident of House No. 103, Masajid Moth, Near Niti Bagh, New Delh-100049 (VEHICLE OWNER) 5. Nandu Ram Gond, s/o not known to the appellant, aged about 30 years, resident of Bandha, (Bhaura Kachar), Chowki, Juna Para, P.S. Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ADDeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicles Act. 1988 Present : Shri Amrito Das for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15th February 2008) Heard on admission. 2. The appellant - insurance company is aggrieved by the award dated 01.12.2007 passed in claim case No.207/2007 by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (henceforth, the Tribunal) whereby in a case of accidental death of a girl aged 5 years on 29.11.2006 compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realization was awarded. 3. Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appellant argued only on the question of quantum and not on other grounds. He placed reliance on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 324 and another judgment of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim & Others, Case No. Appeal (civil) 4308 of 2007. Reliance was also placed on Lata Wadhwa and others v. State ofBihar and others, AIR 2001 SC 3218 and Sa/nar Singh v. V.N.Shukla & others, 2007 (2) C.G.L.J.374. It was urged that in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in such cases for assessing compensation the notional income in schedule-11 and the multiplier method should not be adopted. In the alternative, it was urged that multiplier of 15 ought not to have been applied in case of death of a child aged 5 years and deduction of 1/3rd of the notional income towards personal expenses of the deceased ought to have been made by the Tribunal. On these grounds, it was urged that the compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal was on the higher side. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, 1 have perused the impugned award. It is true that in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim & Others and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender & Ors. (supra), the Apex Court, in view of uncertainties abound in computation of compensation in cases ofyoung children oftender age, did not adopt the multiplier method. However, in New India Assurance Co- Ltd. v. Satender & Ors. (supra), the accident had occurred on 07.05.2002 in which a child aged 9 years had died. The Apex Court awarded compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of petition till payment is made whereas in the ^^^-. ^-^"' x "^ /^^ fi. ^••"••^ fs t.»Ki"" , •"" ~v%s^:-: present case the accident had occurred on 29.11.2006 and although the compensation awarded is Rs.2,25,000/-, yet interest has been awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till payment is made. Similarly in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim & Others (supra), a child aged 7 years had died in an accident which had occurred on 20.11.1994. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.51,500/- as compensation which was enhanced to Rs.1,52,000/- by the High Court in an appeal. It cannot be deciphered from the judgment as to what was the interest awarded? The Supreme Court has maintained the amount of compensation awarded by the High Court. It has to be borne in mind that the case pertains to the year 1994 in which compensation of Rs.1,52,000/- has been awarded. If a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- would have been deposited in a Nationalised Bank in 1994, it would have grown to more than Rs.2,25,000/- in the year 2007. Bearing this in mind, 1 am of the considered opinion that the award of compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of only 6% per annum by the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is just and reasonable compensation and does not call any interference. 5. So far as the argument in the alternative that multiplier of 15 ought not to have been applied in case of death of a child aged 5 years is concerned, a perusal of the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shows that for a child upto 15 years of age, multiplier 15 is applicable. In this view of the matter, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant falls to the ground. The argument that 1/3rd deduction from the notional income ought to have been made by the Tribunal towards personal expenses of the deceased also does not hold good in the present case. In case of death of an infant or a child of very tender age the Tribunal is not requiredto make an assessment of the actual income. In any case, as already held, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim & Others (supra), and the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable compensation. The contention of the tearned counsel for the appellant cannot, therefore, be accepted and the approach of the Tribunal in taking notional income as provided in the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and multiplying the same by taking appropriate multiplier can, therefore, not be faulted in the facts and circumstances of this case. "^k.~"^ 4N ::^ ^ ^^ 6. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^<?y^