The court established that compensation calculations for wrongful death must consider economic indices and includes various heads beyond basic loss, emphasizing a driver’s duty of care in populated areas.

Order :

GANESH RAM MEENA, J.

1. The claimants/appellants, being the legal heirs and parents of deceased minor girl Miss Asha Kumari, aged 10 years, have presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in their claim petition under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, for the tragic and untimely death of their daughter in a road accident. The incident took place on 28th October 2005 at approximately 1:30 PM on National Highway No. 11, near Santosh Sagar Restaurant at Biharipura Mode. At the time of the accident, the deceased was attempting to cross the road with care when she was suddenly struck by an army jeep bearing registration number 02G 8413/8H, which was being driven at a high speed and in a reckless manner by Respondent No. 1, Baljinder Singh. The vehicle was traveling from Dausa toward Jaipur, and the collision led to the child’s instant death, as the jeep ran over her. Witnesses present at the scene, including residents such as Harshaya Meena and Ramu, attempted to stop the vehicle, but due to its speed and lack of control, the accident could not be averted.

2. Following the incident, the father of the deceased, Advocate Revdamal, filed a complaint at Bansi Police Station, upon which FIR No. 370/05 was registered. The investigation confirmed the facts as narrated by the complainant and eyewitnesses, and a charge sheet was filed against non- claimant/Respondent No. 1 under Sections 279 and 304A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE for rash and negligent driving. The post-mortem report confirmed the injuries sustained by the deceased as consistent with the account of the accident, and her age was established as 10 years based on official records, post-mortem report, and corroborative witness testimony.

3. Non-claimants/Respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 filed reply denying the claims of negligence and submitted that the girl ran across the road carelessly and that the accident was unavoidable, asserting that the vehicle was being driven properly and at a reasonable speed. They also raised a procedural objection, alleging that the claim petition was not in compliance with Section 16 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT and the Rajasthan State Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules. However, the non-claimant/Respondent No. 1 failed to file any written reply and instead defended himself during the tribunal proceedings, claiming that the girl suddenly came in front of the jeep, and the accident occurred despite his best efforts to avoid it.

4. In light of the above, the Tribunal rejected the defence raised by the opponents and held non-claimant/Respondent No.1 liable for the accident due to his rash and negligent driving. Relying on judicial precedents, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender & Ors. reported in 2006(13) SCC 60 and other similar cases, the Tribunal allowed compensation as Rs. 1,80,000/- in lump sum for the loss of life of the 10-year-old child. Additionally, the Tribunal directed the opponents to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount from 3rd July 2006 until realization. It was further ordered that the amount be distributed between the parents of the deceased in a structured manner, with Rs. 10,000 each to be disbursed for the first four years, and the remaining amount to be paid jointly thereafter.

5. The counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal, after examining the statements of the witnesses, the police report, and the driver’s defense, found the evidence produced by the appellants to be consistent and credible. The driver’s exp