H3G_H_COURT OF SHRI ©UPTA,CJ. HON'BLE SHRS RANGMATH CHASMDRAKAR,,] iVJ.A. (ClNo. 283 of 2010 ADDeliants Cjalmants 1. Sanjay Prakash Soni, S/Q. Sahash Ram Sonl, about 29 years, 2. Ku. Sandhya Soni, D/o. Sanjay Prakash Soni, about 07 years, 3. Ku. Puja Soni, D/o. Sanjay Prakash Sonl, aged about 04 years. 4. Ku. Poonam Sonl, D/o. Sanjay Prakash Sonl, aged about 08 months. Appeliant No. 2 to 4 being minor on behaif of through their iegai guardian father Sanjay Prakash Soni AppeJlant No.1) All Caste - Satnami, Al! R/o. ViJlage - Bhlnoda, Tahsll - Bljajgarh, District - Raipur (C.G.) Respondent Non-Claimants Versus 1. Dilesh Sahu, S/o. KhlJawan Ram Sahu, aged about 30 years, R/o. VilSage - Kodiya, Poiice Station Utai, District Durg (C.G.) (Driver of vehlcle Metadoor bearing regjstration No. C.G. 07/C/2600) 2 Khitawan Ram Sahu, S/o. Kheduram Sahu, about 50 years; R/o. Vlilage - Kodiya, Poiice Station - Utai, District - Durg (C.G.) (Registered owner of vehicle Metadoor bearing registration No.C.G.07/C/2600) .^^•^ ^ 3. The • Regional Manager, The Oriental jnsurance Company Llmlted, throuyh DJvisionai Manager, Divisionai Office, Jaii Road, Ralpur, Tahsll & Dlstrict - Raipur (C.G.) (insurer of VehicEe Metador bearing reglstration No. C.G. 07/C/2600) MiscellaneGus AppeaJ u/s173 ofthe MotorVehIcIes Act 1988 Presenf : Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsei forthe appetlants. ORDER (17th March, The following order of the Court was passed by Gupta, C.J. Shri Shivendu Pandya, iearned counsei for the appellants is heard on i.A.'No.01/2010, an appiication for condonation of the delay En filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submisslons of learned counsei for the appeiiants and the grounds taken in the appiication, weare satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeai. 3) l.A. No.01/ 2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay of four days in fj!ing the appea! is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counse! for the appeilants is heard on admlssion. 5) The appellants, unfortunate father and sisters of deceased child Sanjeev Kumar, aged about 5 years are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariyaband, District Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunat') vide award dated 19.11.2009, passed in Claim Case No.42/2009. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.8,30,000/- clalmed by the appeilants / daimants, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehlcles Act for the death of deceased child Sanjeev Kumar, aged about 05 years in the motor accident on 05.10.2008, the Tribunal av^arded a total sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation along vtfith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing ofthe ctaim petitlon ti!l the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Shivendu Pandya, Eearned counsel for the appelEants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.50,000/- only as deceased child Sanjeev Kumar would have extended great support to his father, aDpeIlant No.1 in h'ss old age. 8) The Apex Court while considering as to what wouid be the just and proper compensation for the death of a child aged about 7 years in the case of Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. V. Syed Ibrahim and others reported in 2007 (4) T.A,C. 385 (S.C.) observed sn paras9&10: "9. This Court in Lata Wadhwa while computing compensation made distinction between the deceased children faliing withln the age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 years. ^"i% r^^" ^h w 10. in cases of young chitdrenof tender age, in view of uncertainties about, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase In their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estlmated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertaintles in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter adyancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonabie certainty. Therefore, neither is the income of the deceased child capabie of assessment on estimated basis nor Is the flnanciai ioss suffered by the parents capable of mathematicai computation." The Apex Court in the case of Oriental Snsurance Co. Ltd. V. Syed Ibrahiin and others (supra), held that the compensation of Rs.51,500/- was just and proper compensation for the death of a child aged about seven years. 9) The compensation of Rs. 50.000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above quoted dlctum of the Apex Court in the of Oriental Snsurance Co. Ltd. V. Syed and others (supra) and the fact that deceased chsld Sanjeev Kumar was aged about 05 years only, we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation and does not call for any enhancement in this appeai. 10) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ,;.'-",^^ ^ \^ "•^.^r?^^^' ^ 11) The appeai fiied by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu