IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE 2^nd OF MAY, 2023 MISC. APPEAL No. 3029 of 2013 BETWEEN:-

1. SHAYAD NAQVI ZAFAR S/O LATE SHAYAD IFTKHAR AHMAD, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O 223, IQBAL MAIDAN, BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SMT. SHEMA JAFAR W/O SHAYAD NAQVI ZAFAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O 223, IQBAL MAIDAN DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS (APPELANTS BY SHRI SANDEEP KOSHTA – ADVOCATE)

AND

1. GUDDU @ RAJA RAJPUT (DRIVER), S/O UMED SINGH R/O VILL. PADARIYA POST BESARA P.S. MALZONE, SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. RAJESH TIWARI (OWNER), S/O SURESH TIWARI ADULT R/O PREM NAGAR MANDIDEEP, DISTT. RAISEN, (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.

LTD. THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISION OFFICE, E-5/18, ARERA COLONY, SHOPING COMPLEX, NEAR B.S.N.L. OFFICE, VITHAN MARKET, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT NO.3 BY SHRI RAKESH JAIN – ADVOCATE)

This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been filed against the award dated 22.04.2013 passed by 13^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in MCC No.546/2010.

2. Since the factum of accident is not in dispute, therefore, it is suffice to mention here that deceased Saman Zafar lost her life in a vehicular accident, which took place on 11.08.2009.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the deceased was aged about 13 years and the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,79,000/-, which is on lower side.

3. Challenging the award passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal v. Lala, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 has assessed the notional income of minor child as Rs.30,000/- per year and after applying multiplier of 15 has assessed the loss of dependency as Rs.4,50,000/- whereas in the present case, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards the loss of income and even the compensation awarded under the customary heads is on a lower side.

4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents has supported findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is the case of the appellants themselves that the minor girl aged about 13 years was driving scooty. Section 4 of Motor Vehicles Act provides for age limit in connection of driving of motor vehicle, which reads as under “4. Age limit in connection with driving of motor vehicles.

(1) No person under the age of eighteen years shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place:

Provided that ¹[a motor cycle with engine capacity not exceeding 50cc] may be driven in a public place by a person after attaining the age of sixteen years.

(2) Subject to the provisions of section 18, no person under the age of twenty years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place.

(3) No learners licence or driving licence shall be issued to any person to drive a vehicle of the class to which he has made an application unless he is eligible to drive that class of vehicle under this section.”

7. Section 8 and Section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:-

“8. Grant of learner's licence.

(1) Any person who is not disqualified under section 4 for driving a motor vehicle and who is not for the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence may, subject to the provisions of section 7, apply to any of the licensing authority in the State--

(i) in which he ordinarily resides or carries on business, or (ii) in which the school or establishment referred to in section 12 from where he intends to receive instruction in driving a motor vehicle is situate, for the issue to him of a learner's licence.

(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and shall be accompanied by such documents with such fee and submit in such manner, including electronic means as may be prescribed