'\ ' ( HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'bie Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Appeilant (Non-applicant No.31 MA.C.NQ, 861 of 2008 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Through the Divisiona! Manager, Oriental insurance Company Ltd., Maiviya Nagar, Durg TahsiJ and District - Durg (CG) Versus Resoondents (Appiicant) Non-apDlicant No.1 Non-aoDiicant 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, BhiSai, P.S. Sup6la, District Durg (CG) 2. Gajraj Singh Rajput S/o Dansingh Rajput, aged about 29 years. Rfa Banspara, Durg, Tahsil and District- Durg (CG) 3. Smt. Sima Devi W/o Brijmohan Prasad, aged about 30 years, R/o Shivnath Travels, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (CG) Proprietor-Shivnath Travels, Owner of Bus No.CG-04- E/7799 MisceSlaneous appeal under Section 173 of IVIotor _Vehidejftcti 1988 Present: Shri A.K. Athaley, counsei for the appeliant. ORALORDER (Passed on 08.07.2008) This appeai is being disposed of finally 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.45/2007 by the XIth Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal (FTC) Durg (hereinafter referred to as the <MACT*), whereby in a case of accidental death of Yuvraj Kumar Dewangan, a child aged about 3 years, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded by the Tribunat. The MACT further directed the insurer to pay compensatton along with an Interest of 8% per annum from the date of appllcation. It further directed that if the compensation was not .. ^ deposited within a period of 2 months from the date of award, the insurer shall be iiable to pay simple interest at the enhanced rate of 10% perannum. (3) Learned counsel for the appellanVinsurer made a three-fold submission. A. that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunai was on the higher side, B. that, the MACT did not take into consideration the plea of contributory negligence raised by the insurerand, C. that, the MACT had no jurisdlctiors 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 counsel for the appellant, E find that there is no merit in the first two submissions. In MQHIU Devs and another V. Musafsr Paswan and another 2005 ACJ 89, it was held that the notional yearEy income of the non-eaming child should be taken at Rs.15,000/- and muitiplier 15 shouid be adopted. This decision has been foliowed by this Court in Gownd Prasad Famra^ar and anofhe^^.^ohan_LaLao^of^rs 2007 (11A (CG) Samar Singh Vs. V.N. Shukla & others_2QQ7 (2) CGLJ 374, Subelal Banjare and others vs. Mohd. A/az Khan @ Psntu and others IVIisceiianeous Appeal No.365/2003 on 11.02.2908 and The New india^Assurance Company Limited V. Mohamad Hassan Khan and off?ereM.A.(C) No.141/2006 on 04.07.2008. In the above mentioned cases, compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- has been awarded in case of death of a chlid. in 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 9 of the award. "w'^' -3- Merely because, two minor chiidren were carried on the motor cycle, besides the piliion rider, negligence of the driver of the motor cycle was rightiy held by the MACT as not having been established. No other material was placed by the insurer to prove contributory negiigence on the part of the driver of the motor cyde. In this view of the matter.the second limb of the argument aiso fails. ^eni^.. (6) As regards the last limb of the argument of the tearned counsel for the appellant is concemed, Jt has merit. in Natlqnal fnsurance Co^ LM^/^^Keshav_Bahadurand^thers_ ASR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1581, it was heEd that "once the disci^etion has Jbeer? exercised by the Tnbunafto award simple interest on the amountof compen^ation to be awarded at a partlcuiar rate and from a partscuiar date, there is no scope for retrospectlve enhancement for default in payment of compensatipn. No expr^ss or impiied fwwer m this fBgand can be cuiled out from Section 110-CC of the Act or Section 171 of the new Act Sucha dlrection in the award for retrospective enhancement of interest for defau!t in payment of the compensation together with interest payable thereon vlrtually amounts to impo$itian of penalty whlch is not statutorily envisaged and prescribed.'' The MACT had thus no jurisdictlon to award enhanced rate of compensation if the insurer fails to deposit compensation aiong with the interest awarded by the MACT within the period stipulated. In this view of the matter, condition No.3 of para 14 ofthe award is iiable to be setaside. Priya (7) in the resuit, the appeai ss partly aljowed. Conditions No.1 &2 of para 14 i.e. compensation and the simpfe interest of 8% per annum awarded by the Tribunal are maintained. Condition No.3 in awarding enhanced rate of interest is set aslde. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge