SMT. DEVIKALA vs RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

Court
Uttarakhand High Court

UKHC010027122014

2026:UHC:7962

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No. 303 of 2014

Smt. Devikala and Another ... Appellants

Versus

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd and others
… Respondents

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pawan Nath, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Prashant
Khanna, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Pulak Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent
no.1/Insurance Company.
Mr. B.S. Negi, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral)

Challenge in the present Appeal from Order is
to a judgment and award dated 18.02.2014, passed by
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District Judge,
Chamoli (Gopeshwar), in Motor Accident Claim Case No.
18 of 2011, “Smt. Devikala and another v. Reliance
General Insurance Company Limited and others”,
whereby partly allowing the claim petition filed on behalf
of the claimants/appellants, compensation of
Rs.70,000/- was awarded against the Insurance
Company.
2. The relief sought in this appeal is to enhance
the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal vide
its judgment and award dated 18.02.2014.
3. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants
would submit that the learned Tribunal wrongly decided
the case and awarded a meagre amount, which is liable
1

UKHC010027122014

2026:UHC:7962
to be enhanced by this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants
would rely upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Meena Devi v. Nanu Ram Mahto @
Nemchand Mahto and others, rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5345
of 2019, dated 13.10.2022, and has drawn the attention
of the Court to paragraph 13 of the said judgment.
Paragraph 13 of the said judgment is being extracted
hereunder for ready reference :-
“13. Thus applying the ratio of the said
judgments, looking to the age of the child in the
present case i.e. 12 years, the principles laid down
in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) are aptly
applicable to the facts of the present case. As per
the ocular statement of the mother of the deceased,
it is clear that deceased was a brilliant student and
studying in a private school. Therefore, accepting
the notional earning Rs. 30,000/- including future
prospect and applying the multiplier of 15 in view of
the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma (supra),
the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- and
if we add Rs. 50,000/- in conventional heads, then
the total sum of compensation comes to
Rs. 5,00,000/-. As per the judgment of MACT, lump
sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been
awarded, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs.
2,00,000/- up to the value of the Claim Petition. In
our view, the said amount of compensation is not
just and reasonable looking to the computation
made hereinabove. Hence, we determine the total
compensation as Rs. 5,00,000/- and on reducing
2

UKHC010027122014

2026:UHC:7962
the amount as awarded by the High Court i.e. Rs.
2,00,000/-, the enhanced amount comes to Rs.
3,00,000/-.”
5. Relying upon the said judgment in the case of
Meena Devi (supra), learned counsel for the appellants
would submit that in the case of Meena Devi (supra), on
account of the death of a child aged 12 years, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had granted compensation of an amount
of Rs. 5,00,000/- though the MACT had granted a lump-
sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, which was
thereafter enhanced by the High Court to Rs.2,00,000/-.
Drawing parallels with the said case, he would submit
that in the instant case, the deceased was a nine years
school going girl, and he would thus submit that the
judgment in the case of Meena Devi (supra) squarely
covers the case of the appellants and has thus sought
enhancement to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company, Mr. Pulak Agarwal, Advocate, would submit
that at the time when the accident had occurred and
when the claim petition was finally adjudicated in the
year 2014, the compensation was adequately assessed.
However, he would very fairly submit that the position of
law is not otherwise than has been submitted on behalf
of the learned counsel for the appellants.
7. The claim petition was filed with the averments
that on 14.04.2010, when the deceased Km. Vandana @
Nisha had gone to the market to buy goods, then the
driver of vehicle No. UA-07M-2953 was driving the
vehicle rashly and negligently and hit the deceased, due
to which, she sustained injuries and she was admitted in
the District Hospital, Gopeshwar, but during her
3

UKHC010027122014

2026:UHC:7962
treatment, she succumbed to injuries at 10:00 p.m. on
14.04.2010. On the date of the accident, the deceased
Km. Vandana @ Nisha was 9 years old and was a student
and in the claim petition, compensation was prayed for
an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-.
8. The Insurance Company contested the claim
petition by filing its written statement. Written
statement was also filed by the owner of the vehicle.
9. On the basis of the rival pleadings, issues were
framed, and on Issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal came to
the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of
the rash and negligent driving by the driver of vehicle No.
UA-07M-2953, and in that accident, Km. Vandana @
Nisha was injured and died while undergoing treatment.
10. On Issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal came to
the conclusion that on the date of the accident, all the
documents of the vehicle were valid and the driving
license was also valid, and the vehicle was not being
plied against the policy conditions.
11. On Issue No. 3, the learned Tribunal came to
the conclusion that it would be justified to grant lump-
sum compensation of an amount of Rs.70,000/-, which
was allowed against the Insurance Company.
12. After considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, the only point for
determination which falls for consideration of this Court
is what would be the adequate compensation for a
school-going girl, aged 9 years, who lost her life in a
motor accident?
13. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants
would submit that the compensation as awarded by the
4

UKHC010027122014

2026:UHC:7962
learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate and meagre. He
has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Meena Devi (supra), wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had enhanced the compensation
on account of the accidental death of a school going girl
of 12 years.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company would submit that at the time when
the claim petition was adjudicated, the compensation
was adequate as per the prevailing norms.
15. It is no doubt true that the accident occurred
way back in the year 2010, and the claim petition itself
came to be adjudicated finally in the year 2014. However,
a bare perusal of the judgment in the case of Meena Devi
(supra) would reveal that therein the date of accident was
29.07.2003, and the child who lost life in that accident
was 12 years old. In the case of Meena Devi (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 13 has granted
compensation of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/. The
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be the law
of the land, and also in view of the fact that since the
compensation as has been determined by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was pertaining to an accident which
occurred in the year 2003, whereas in the present case,
the accident has occurred in the year 2010. Hence, in
such view of the matter, the present appeal is squarely
covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Meena Devi (supra), and the appeal deserves
to be allowed in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Meena Devi (supra).
16. In the present case, the deceased was a nine
year-old school-going girl, and since in the case of Meena
5

UKHC010027122014

2026:UHC:7962
Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted a
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the
accidental death of a school-going girl of 12 years old,
hence, in the present case also, the compensation
deserves to be enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-, since the
deceased in the present case, namely Km. Vandana @
Nisha, happens to be a nine-year-old school-going girl.
17. Therefore, the appeal is hereby allowed. The
impugned judgment and order dated 18.02.2014, passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District Judge,
Chamoli, Gopeshwar in Motor Accident Claim Case No.
18 of 2011 is modified, and compensation is enhanced to
Rs.5,00,000/-.
18. Respondent No. 1 / Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the balance amount of the
compensation before the Tribunal concerned within a
period of 45 days from today.
19. The Appeal is according allowed.
20. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
03.09.2026
Shiv/



6