F""TN»ii^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Singie Bench: Hon'bie Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J- Appeilant (jSIon-aRDlicant No.3l M.A,CJMo.860_ofZQ08 The Orientai Insurance Company Ltd Through the Divisional Manager, Orientai Insurance Company Ltd., MaMya Nagar, Durg Tahsi! and District - Durg (CG) Versus ResRondents (Applicant) Non-applicant No.1 Non-applicant No.2 1. Smt Kevra Bai Dewangan Wd/o Roopchand Dewangan, aged about 24 years, R/o Arya Nagar, Ward No.7, Dewangan Kirana Store, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, District Durg (CG) 2. Gajraj Singh Rajput S/o Dansingh RajpuS, aged about 29 years, R/o Banspara, Durg, Tahsil and District- Durg (CG) 3. Smt. Sima Devi W/o Brijmohan Prasad, aged about SOyears, R/o Shsvnath Travels, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (CG) Proprietor-Shivnath Traveis, Owner of Bus No.CG-04- E/7799 Rflisceilaneous appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehlcle Act, 1988 Present: Shri AX. Athaiey, counset for the appeiiant. ORAL_ORDER (Passed on 08.07.2008) This appeai is being disposed of finaliy at the stage of admission without notice to the other side. (2) The appellant/insurer is aggrieved by the award dated 30.4.2008 passed in claims case No.43/2007 by the X! Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai (FTC) Durg (hereinafter referred to as the 'MACT'), whereby in a case of accidental death of (Viohit Kumar Dewangan, a chiid aged about 6 years, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was a;warded by the Tribunai. The 'MACT further directed the insurer to pay compensation aiong with an interest of 8% per annum from the date of application. it further direct'ed that if the conipensatlon was not -si 9^ deposited within a period of 2 months from the date of award, the insurer shall be liabie to pay simpie interest at the enhanced rate of 10% perannumi. (3) Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer made a three-fold submission. A. that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on the higher side, B. that, the MACT dsd not take into consideration the piea of contributory negiigence raised by the insurer and, C. that, the MACT had no jurisdiction to award enhanced rate of interest in case of non payment of compensation within the period stipulated by the MACT. (4) Having considered the submissions of the learned counsei for the appeiiant, i find that there is no merit in the first two submissions. In Maniu Devi and anotherV^Mjjsaftr__Paswan_a^nd_anoffi r 2005 ACJ 99, it was heid that the notionai yearly income of the non-earning chsld shouid be taken at Rs.15.000/- and muitiplier 15 shouid be adopted. This decision has been followed by this Court in Govind Prasad Tamrakar and another Vs. Mohan La! and others 2007 (1) ACCD 68 fCG) Samar Singh Vs. V.N. Shukfa &_aSiers_2QQ7 (2) CGLJ 374, Subelal Banjare and others vs. Mohd. Aiaz Khan 0>. Pintu and others Miscellaneous Appeal No.365/2003 on 11.02.2008 and The New india Assurance Company Umited V. Mohamad Hassan i^ian and others M.A.(C) No.141/2006 on 04.07.2008. In the above mentioned cases, compensationof Rs.2,25,000/- has been awarded in case of death of a chiid. !n this view of the matter, 1 am of the considered opinion that the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the MACT cannot be said to be excessive. (5) As regards the ground of contributory negligence raised by the insurer, the MACT has dealt with this issue in para 10 of the award. ,^^^,, m^^^ t ^'^ JJ '\.C!9G/ %3.7ea^ 'J>- Merely because, two minor children were carried on the motor cycle, besides the piliion rider, negiigence of the driver of the motor cycle was rightiy held by the MACT as not having been estabiished. No other material was placed by the insurer to prove contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle. !n this view of the matter, the second limb of the argument also faiis. (6) As regards the last iimb of the argument of the tearned counsel for the appeiiant is concemed, it has merit. In NatJonalfnsurQnce Co- Ud Vs. Keshav Bahadur and oihers AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1581, It was heid that "once the discfetson has been exerdsed by the Tribunai to award ssmple interest on the amount of compensation tobe awarded at a particular rate and from a pariicular date, there is no scope for retrospective enhancement for defauli in payment of compensatlon. No express or implied power m this regard can be culled out from Sectlon 110-CC of ihe Act or Seciksn 171 of the new Act Such a direction in the award for retrospective enhancemeni of 'mterest for defau!t in paymeni of the compensation together with interest payable thereon virtually amounts to imposition of penaity which is not statutoriiy enwsaged and pfescribed." The MACT had thus no jurisdictson to award enhanced rate of compensation if the insurer faiis to deposit compensation aiong with the interest awarded by the MACT within the period stlpulated. in this view of the matter, condition No.3 of para 15 ofthe award is liabie to be set aside. (7) In the result, the appeal is partiy allowed. Conditions No.1 & 2 of para 15 i.e. compensation and the simple interest of 8% per annum awarded by the Tribunal are maintained. Condition No.3 in awarding enhanced rate of interest is set aside. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Priya