••Vi.-r^SiKS^SS^;s3?%®^i?K: ^istt '^lB^@IISl^S^tS^ .'.'^^iP'i'^S^^^^i.'B:^^^1 HIGHCOURtOR^HHAT'TIS&ftRHATBIl.ASPUR . ".BiVISiONSBENCrt."' ^'^^S ? Coram 'BE-E SI-iRllRAJEEVGUPTA^ C.J. & 'BLESHRI RESPONDENTS M.A.(Gl No.t197'of2008 1. Kunjram, S/o. Samelal Yadav, aged about 44 years, 2. Ashwani Bai, yv/o. Kunjram Yadav, agedabout42year3, Both R/o.Village-Khamhi.Tahsit- Lormi, District Biiaspur(C.G.) VERSUS 1,» Rameshwar Prasad, S/o. 1(39yadia, ^aged, abotit 43; years, ^hisl^Driver.i'Frtiek Nb. ©.G.-10- ZB-1714, l^. VBiage-Sen^^ Tahsil-rakHaf|iu!",0istrictBilaspur 2. Vishhu Prasad, S/o. Shankar La[ Agrawal, aged' about,^'4&ryears. VehicleQwner, Truek NO.G.G.-10- ZB-1714, R/o. Main Road, Lorml, DistrictBi!aspur(C.G.) 3. The Qrientai Insurarice Company Limited, Divislonal Dffjce, ailaspMyE MISGELLANEOUSARF>iEA^UNE3>ERSECTION-t730FIVI£3FFQR l:VEHietES:AGTi.1:98^:':::.i;;.v.'.<.l'M'i'.'^ Present: Shri Gautam Khetrapal, eounsel fbrthe^appelfants. 0;R:D,ERf::l,,,,.,:^ll'''-;'^ (22naS&ptemb»r,2Q08) The fpllowirig ohjer pf the Court was^^^^^^ p RajeevGuDta;C.J.;:';:',',':;.::. .:.... :', •..•::' '.,:.''':' ;:: .;.:'. TheappellantsaFesSeMng^enfianceiTientCiftheeQrhperreatisn awarded bythe^ditionalNotor^eideh^Clairns^riBufl^^ A (for Short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.07.2008,passed in Claim Case No.96/2007. 2) Asagainst the compensation of Rs.11,75,000/- claimed bythe appellants, unfortunate parents of deceased Manish Kumar, aged about two and haif years in the motor accident on 01.12.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.52,000/- as compensation aiong wlth interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the fiiing of the Claim Petition, till the date ofactual payment. 3) Shri Gautam Khetrapal, learned counsei for the appeliants relying upon the dicta of the Apex Court in cases Assurance Company Limited Vs Satyendra, reported in TAC 11 and Kaushalya Devi Vs. Shri Karan Arora and others, reported in 2007 (3) T.A.C. 16 (S.C.) vehemently argued thatthe Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.52,000/- to the appellants. 4) On a perusat of the impugned award, we gat'ner that the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.52,000/- following the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Syed Ibrahim and others reported in 2007 (4) TAC 385 (SC). 5) The cases of Satyendra (Supra) and Kaushalya Devi (supra) are distinguishable on facts as in the case ofSatyendra (supra) the ageof the child was 9 years; in the case of Kaushatya (supra) , it; was 14 years, whereas in the present case, the age of the child was' onlytwo and halfyears. ^•^-i: 6) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhaneement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai, which is perfectly in line with the recent dictum of the Apex Court in thecase of Syed Ibrahim and others(supra). 7) The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed andis hereby dismissed summarily. \ Sd/- : Justice Sd/- ,.. Sunil Kuiriai' Sinha Judee padma