ORDER This appeal 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.43/2007 by the XIth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Durg (hereinafter referred to as the `MACT'), whereby in a case of accidental death of Mohit Kumar Dewangan, a child aged about 6 years, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. The MACT further directed the insurer to pay compensation along with an interest of 8% per annum from the date of application. 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 liable to pay simple interest at the enhanced rate of 10% per annum. (3) Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer made a three-fold submission. A. that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on the higher side, B. that, the MACT did not take into consideration the plea of contributory negligence raised by the insurer and, C. that, the MACT had no jurisdiction 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, I find that there is no merit in the first two submissions. In Manju Devi and another V. Musafir Paswan and another 2005 ACJ 99, it was held that the notional yearly income of the non-earning child should be taken at Rs.15,000/- and multiplier 15 should be adopted. This decision has been followed by this Court in Govind Prasad Tamrakar and another Vs. Mohan Lal and others 2007 (1) ACCD 68 (CG) Samar Singh Vs. V.N. Shukla & others 2007 (2) CGLJ 374, Subelal Banjare and others vs. Mohd. Ajaz Khan @ Pintu and others Miscellaneous Appeal No.365/2003 on 11.02.2008 and The New India Assurance Company Limited V. Mohamad Hassan Khan and others M.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 child. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the MACT cannot be said to be excessive. In the above mentioned cases, compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- has been awarded in case of death of a child. In this view of the matter, I 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 10 of the award. Merely because, two minor children were carried on the motor cycle, besides the pillion rider, negligence of the driver of the motor cycle was rightly held by the MACT as not having been established. No other material was placed by the insurer to prove contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle. In this view of the matter, the second limb of the argument also fails. (6) As regards the last limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it has merit. In National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Keshav Bahadur and others AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1581, it was held that "once the discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal to award simple interest on the amount of compensation to be awarded at a particular rate and from a particular date, there is no scope for retrospective enhancement for default in payment of compensation. No express or implied power in this regard can be culled out from Section 110-CC of the Act or Section 171 of the new Act. Such a direction in the award for retrospective enhancement of interest for default in payment of the compensation together with interest payable thereon virtually amounts to imposition of penalty which is not statutorily envisaged and prescribed." The MACT had thus no jurisdiction to award enhanced rate of compensation if the insurer fails to deposit compensation along with the interest awarded by the MACT within the period stipulated. In this view of the matter, condition No.3 of para 15 of the award is liable to be set aside. (7) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conditions No.1 & 2 of para 15 i.e. compensation and the simple interest of 8% per annum awarded by the Tribunal are maintained. Condition No.3 in awarding enhanced rate of interest is set aside. (7) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conditions No.1 & 2 of para 15 i.e. compensation and the simple interest of 8% per annum awarded by the Tribunal are maintained. Condition No.3 in awarding enhanced rate of interest is set aside. J U D G E Priya HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- M.A.C. No. 861 of 2008 Appellant : The Oriental Insurance (Non-applicant Company Ltd Through the No.3) Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Malviya Nagar, Durg Tahsil and District - Durg (CG) Versus Respondents : 1. Smt Kevra Bai Dewangan Wd/o (Applicant) Roopchand Dewangan, aged about 24 years, R/o Arya Nagar, Ward No.7, Dewangan Kirana Store, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, District Durg (CG) Non-applicant : 2. Gajraj Singh Rajput S/o No.1 Dansingh Rajput, aged about 29 years, R/o Banspara, Durg, Tahsil and District- Durg (CG) Non-applicant : 3. Smt. Sima Devi W/o No.2 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 Miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ Present: Shri A.K. Athaley, counsel for the appellant. ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ORAL ORDER (Passed on 08.07.2008) This appeal 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 Claims 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 Tribunal. The MACT further directed the insurer to pay compensation along with an interest of 8% per annum from the date of application. 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 liable to pay simple interest at the enhanced rate of 10% per annum. (3) Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer made a three-fold submission. 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 liable to pay simple interest at the enhanced rate of 10% per annum. (3) Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer made a three-fold submission. A. that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on the higher side, B. that, the MACT did not take into consideration the plea of contributory negligence raised by the insurer and, C. that, the MACT had no jurisdiction 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, I find that there is no merit in the first two submissions. In Manju Devi and another V. Musafir Paswan and another 2005 ACJ 99, it was held that the notional yearly income of the non-earning child should be taken at Rs.15,000/- and multiplier 15 should be adopted. This decision has been followed by this Court in Govind Prasad Tamrakar and another Vs. Mohan Lal and others 2007 (1) ACCD 68 (CG) Samar Singh Vs. V.N. Shukla & others 2007 (2) CGLJ 374, Subelal Banjare and others vs. Mohd. Ajaz Khan @ Pintu and others Miscellaneous Appeal No.365/2003 on 11.02.2008 and The New India Assurance Company Limited V. Mohamad Hassan Khan and others M.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 child. In this view of the matter, I 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. Merely because, two minor children were carried on the motor cycle, besides the pillion rider, negligence of the driver of the motor cycle was rightly held by the MACT as not having been established. No other material was placed by the insurer to prove contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle. In this view of the matter, the second limb of the argument also fails. (6) As regards the last limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it has merit. No other material was placed by the insurer to prove contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle. In this view of the matter, the second limb of the argument also fails. (6) As regards the last limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it has merit. In National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Keshav Bahadur and others AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1581, it was held that "once the discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal to award simple interest on the amount of compensation to be awarded at a particular rate and from a particular date, there is no scope for retrospective enhancement for default in payment of compensation. No express or implied power in this regard can be culled out from Section 110-CC of the Act or Section 171 of the new Act. Such a direction in the award for retrospective enhancement of interest for default in payment of the compensation together with interest payable thereon virtually amounts to imposition of penalty which is not statutorily envisaged and prescribed." The MACT had thus no jurisdiction to award enhanced rate of compensation if the insurer fails to deposit compensation along with the interest awarded by the MACT within the period stipulated. In this view of the matter, condition No.3 of para 14 of the award is liable to be set aside. (7) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conditions No.1 & 2 of para 14 i.e. compensation and the simple interest of 8% per annum awarded by the Tribunal are maintained. Condition No.3 in awarding enhanced rate of interest is set aside.