For a child above 5 years, a multiplier of 15 should be applied: Allahabad High Court
As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a girl of 6 years of age, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per the Second Schedule, she being a non-earning person, a sum of Rs. 15,000.00 must be taken as the income. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 2,25,000.00. Such an observation was made by the Allahabad High Court before Hon’ble Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizv in the matter of Rishi Ram Sahu &amp; Anr vs – Mahendra Kumar Tripathi &amp; ors [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. – 1716 of 2010] on 26.11.2021. 
The facts of the case were that the 06 years old daughter of the claimant/ appellant died in an accident on 22.11.2008. After which the  Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Chitrakoot passed an award of Rs. 1,07,000/- with 6% interest per annum. Aggrieved by the said award the claimant has moved the present appeal before this court.

The Hon’ble High Court held referred to the case of Manju Devi and another Vs. Musafir Paswan, reported in 2005 (1) TAC 609 (SC) in which it was held that “As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per the Second Schedule, he being a non-earning person, a sum of Rs. 15,000.00 must be taken as the income. ”

Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the case of  Rajendra Singh and others Vs. National Insurance Company 2020 ACJ 2211 is not applicable in the present case as there was no contributory negligence.

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the instant appeal.
Click Here To Read The Judgment.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The facts of the case were that the 06 years old daughter of the claimant/ appellant died in an accident on 22.11.2008. After which the  Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Chitrakoot passed an award of Rs. 1,07,000/- with 6% interest per annum. Aggrieved by the said award the claimant has moved the present appeal before this court. 
The Hon’ble High Court held referred to the case of Manju Devi and another Vs. Musafir Paswan, reported in 2005 (1) TAC 609 (SC) in which it was held that “As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per the Second Schedule, he being a non-earning person, a sum of Rs. 15,000.00 must be taken as the income. ”

Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the case of  Rajendra Singh and others Vs. National Insurance Company 2020 ACJ 2211 is not applicable in the present case as there was no contributory negligence.

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the instant appeal.
Click Here To Read The Judgment.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The Hon’ble High Court held referred to the case of Manju Devi and another Vs. Musafir Paswan, reported in 2005 (1) TAC 609 (SC) in which it was held that “As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per the Second Schedule, he being a non-earning person, a sum of Rs. 15,000.00 must be taken as the income. ” 
Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the case of  Rajendra Singh and others Vs. National Insurance Company 2020 ACJ 2211 is not applicable in the present case as there was no contributory negligence.

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the instant appeal.
Click Here To Read The Judgment.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the case of  Rajendra Singh and others Vs. National Insurance Company 2020 ACJ 2211 is not applicable in the present case as there was no contributory negligence. 
Finally, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the instant appeal.
Click Here To Read The Judgment.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Finally, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the instant appeal.
Judgment reserved on 15.11.2021 Judgment delivered on Court No. 28 Case : FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 17110 Appellant : Rishi Ram Sahu And Another Respondent : Mahendra Kumar Tripathi And Others Counsel for Appellant : S.D.Ojha Counsel for Respondent : Shreesh Srivastava Hon ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi J This first appeal from order has been filed by the appellants claimants) being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8.4.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Chitrakoot in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 105 70 2008 Rishi Ram Sahu and another Vs Mahendra Kumar Tripathi and others. By the impugned judgment and order an award of Rs. 1 07 000 with 6% per annum interest has been Claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajendra Singh and others Vs. National Insurance Company 2020 ACJ 2211 has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2 95 000 for death of a child. Taking into consideration the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court compensation awarded by the tribunal is insufficient and need to be enhanced according to proposition led by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 insurance company submitted that in the facts of the present case case of Manju Devi 2005 1) TAC 609 SC will apply and the award may be enhanced accordingly The accident is of 22.11.2008 in which daughter of the appellants claimants) aged 6 years has died. The impugned award is dated 8.4.2010. The tribunal has computed the amount of compensation relying on the case law Kheldas Vs. Virendra Singh and others 2008TAC 875 of Rajasthan High Court and has observed that in the aforesaid case law the Rajasthan High Court has held that for the death of a child upto 5 years of age compensation of Rs. 1 lakh should be awarded. The learned tribunal has also referred judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in New Inida Insurance Company Vs. Satendra and others 2007TAC page 11 SC and has observed that deceased belongs to a ordinary family the earning of his father is Rs. 50 per day and has awarded Rs. 1 lakh amount plus Rs. 5000 for loss of love and affection and Rs. 2000 for funeral expenses and this way has awarded Rs. 1 07 000 compensation with 6 per annum interest In para 5 of the memo of appeal it is mentioned that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manju Devi and another Vs. Musafir Paswan reported in 2005 TAC 609 has enhanced the compensation from Rs 90 000 to Rs. 2 25 000 in the case of death of a boy of aged about 13 years and the case of the appellant is identical and fully covered with the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court and the appellants are also entitled for compensation of Rs. 2 25 000 Court has held that In Manju Devi Vs. Musafir Paswan the Hon’ble Supreme “As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 for a boy of 13 years of age a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied As per the Second Schedule he being a non earning person a sum of Rs 15 000.00 must be taken as the income. Thus the compensation comes to Rs. 2 25 000.00.” The case law Rajendra Singh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd and otherscited by the learned counsel for the appellants will not apply in the present case as in that case the date of the accident was 25.12.2012 and award was passed thereafter. The amount of compensation was assessed on the basis of notional income of 36 000 per annum and applying a 50% deduction towards personal expenses with multiplier of 15 the compensation was calculated as Rs. 2 70 000 and out of which 50% was deducted towards contributory negligence. A sum of Rs. 25 000 was added towards funeral expenses leaving to a total award of Rs. 1 60 000 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there was no contributory negligence of the deceased and deduction on account of contributory negligence was held to be unsustainable In the facts of the present case the judgment of Manju Devi (Supra under all the heads is applicable. Award is required to be enhanced The award is enhanced to Rs. 2 25 000 with interest @ 7% per The appeal is allowed accordingly. Respondent no. 3 will re calculate the amount of compensation accordingly and deposit the difference within 12 weeks from today before the tribunal. The judgment and decree shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The record if in this Court be sent forthwith to the tribunal with the copy of the judgment to enable the respondent no. 3 Insurance Company to deposit the difference Dt 26.11.2021