% ^: ww- HSGHCOURTOPGHNAT^iS^RH^BStJ^PUR DIVI$|iONBENCH COR^ HC? BI.ESMRIRAJEEVGUP^^ H<)N'BLE|s|RIRANGiSW Appellants Claimants MiscellaneousADiDeaSfCl No^61 of 2010 .r: 1 Smt Rameshwari ^ai Sahu, aged about 33yearsVV/oPyrarala!Sahu i 2 Puranlal Sahu, agbd about 36 year&^ S/o Preetram Sahuj l'. •."""',.•• ' Both Qfthem are R/o Vili - Kohka, PS . D<mgergaon, distn^ ResDondents VERSUS Ra|u Tiwari,' S/o R/dVVardN&.2,Killa Tah - Dongergaon, 2 Natibnal insuranG& Company^^ l^ Branch Office, Rajnandgaon (CG) ^ambharosa "Tiv^ri, ParaDongergaorT, Distt Rajnandgaon }^mthi Une MisceSlaneous Abbe^l under Section,173^of tVlotdrVehiCleAct Present : Shri RakeshThai<ur,counsel1<)rtheappelSants. ORDER »"cS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ f^ The following order^^^^^^^^^o^^ Rajeev:Gupta^G:.J.'-; .^:;',' fr v :^^w. : ^w^ '-^' Shri Rakesh ^akyr, leamed (^unsel^fo heardonlXNo.1/20^0,anapplic^i6nforcoridon^ infilingtheappeal. 2) 0n due consideration ofti^ subm fortheappellantsandthegroundstakenin1jheapplication,weare ^''•".. • ' ' ...-'•.•-. .l:':' ^'/: •: '•• .'., "•1'- . .-'.'. -1 satisfied tMgt the^appeilants tiave succeedeGl in shiowjfig sufficierit causeforthedelayjnfilingtheappeai^.t 3) IA No.1/201|)iftheref6re, isallQwedandthedelay^^m^ appeal is hereby condoned, j 4) Shri Rakesti Thakur, liearned counseij fbr the appeiiants js heard onadmission. I 5) The appellants are seeking enhancem^nt of the compensation awarded by the First ^dditional IVlotor Accident ClairrisT'ribunaJ,Rajnandgaon(fbrshort,ltheTribunal^videaward dated31.Q7;20Q9^pa^edinClaimCaseN^^^ 6) AS against the comjaensation of Rs.24,50,000/- c the appellants / claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased boy Umesh, aged aboutS year$byfiling aclaim petition ynderSection 166 ofthe MotorVehicles AcrtyMhisdeath Ihthe m^ on 17.04.2007, theTribunal awardedafotal sumofRs.54,500/-as compensation along with interest @ 6% perannum from the date ofrfiling of the claim petition till the date of actuai payment. 7) Shri Rakesh Thakur, leamed counsel fbr the appellants vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.54,500/- only, as the claimants' son Umesh wouldhaveextendedgreatsupporttotheminthetroldage. ::^.•:;^1 ^^-l. :;i^1 II 8) The Apex Ciourt|whjle considering as to what^^^w^ just and prooer compierisation for the death of a child aged about 7 yearsinthecas|,pfOrientallnsuranceCo.Ltd.V.SyedibrahJm •^-...•.,,:.•...:,.••,....,.„. •."; ';,•..•.,•,.. .: ..•,:.. •.•^.'•. , •: .••,.-.• , •• , .' '...^^. . '.;...- "• • -..'.•''.:.. .,/."••.••... •.••'.,•. • '. :,..;.. ''. ' '. ;^ •' ... ..,. .•..,_ and others reported in 2007 (4) T.A.C. 385 (S.C.) observed tn •€'•!'-! ' ;:.' .• '11 '' .. '. ' ' . : ^ 1 ' ''• ! ''•• ' .' '• •1'1' ' ' 11: '1 l lparas 9I&'1:0?;:'',.' Vv'',.::,. ^.:.. .....^ ••:" . -j. "9. ThisCourtin LataWadhwawliilecomputing compensation made distinction j between the deceased children fallingwithin th^ age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 1016 15 years. 10. In cases of young children ©ftender age, in view of uncertainties about, j neither their jncomeatthetimeofdeathnortheprospectsof the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of prpper determination on estimatetfbasis. The reason is that at such an effl-ly age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career ancf thereafter advancement in life are so many that nofhing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither is the income of the deceased child capable of assessment on estimated basis nor is the financialiloss suffered by the parents capabEe of mathematical computation." TheApex Court inthe case ofOrientaI InsuranceCo.Ltd. V. Syed Ibrahim and others (supra), held that the compensatton of Rs.51,500/- was jyst and proper compensatipn for the death of a child aged about seven years. 1^^...,....•» 8^'5'.'' i :i'^' :o:^ subbu 9) The compensation of Rs.54,50Q/- awarded by the Triburial when examined jn the context of the above quoted dictum ofthe Apex Court in the case of Oriental insyrance Co. Ltd. V. Syed Ibrahim and others (supra), and the fact that the appellants' son Umesh was aged about 5 years only on the date of the accident, wearesatisfied,isjustandpropercompensationanddpesnotcall for any enhancement in this appeal. i 10) The appeal, filed by the appelEants/clajmants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liabte fo be dismissedandis herebydismissedsummadhL- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^fc^