c ;.^v: MlGH^OURTaFCHHATTJSMRNlOTtBILASPUR^^^^ PDtVjSiON.BENCH:1^..^ C^AM: HQN'BL.E^HRJRAJEEVGUPMSJ. HQN?BLESHRlSUN!l.KU^ARSI^HA,J. Apssellants Cialmants Misc.ARpeaSNo.9576l20Q3| 1 Smt Neera Bai, WAa Rajkumar Satiu, Aged aboul 27 yeai^ j 2 R^kumar.S/o BJsambhaF, Aged abo^^ '-^29years1' ';f,,l; •..':-,.-,'iij'.''^ BOfhAgricuituriSt&R/oyillSaidha.Tah Berla, 1?S Bemetara, Dist Durg (C©) ; <L i^espondents Non-appljcants •¥ER$US-:1" : ! .,s< • ^'^ Shri Kawa Hadaf, S/q Shri Ramajee, R/o Fala Nayahara, Ppst Karouij, Dlst Dungarpur(Ral) N^ Khatu Shyam^^^^^^^C^ Gopai Mlttai, New Coion^'Du^^ :(Rajasthan);..,l:-:;'::i:/' •;//;'^^/,li.^^ United India Insurance Go. Ltd., Head Off: 24, Hights Road, Chennai, Regionat Office, Sahara Ghambers, Tonk Road, Jalpur Through : Branch Manager, United India Snsurance Co. Ltd., Near JLIC Qffice^ Udaipur Rd, Dungarpur (Rajasth^n) MJsc.ApDea8underSectionl73oftheiViot6FVehjctes •AcS.188S;"l.:^'',l:; '-'^ ^ Present : Shri ^lmiesh Bajpai, counsel for theappeliants. MsSqnJyaKuideep,counseiforFesponcientNo.1 NoneforrespondentNo.Sthoughserved. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel fbr respondent No.3. ^•a2\. ,8- ^ -s ^- •~^ c fe- .-.^ ORDER »th (201n0ctober, 2010) The following order of the Courti| was passed by .Ra|eev:Gupta,;C.J.':. • ': . :,' \ ; :, , :T The unfortunate parents of deceased boy Krishnabhai, aged about 6 years are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additionai Motbr Accident Ciaims Tribuna!, Bemetara, Dist Durg (for short !the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.06.2003, passedin Ciaim Case No.70/2002. 2) Asagainst ttie compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-ciaimed by the appellantsfela|mants, unfortunate parents by filing a cialm petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the death of Krishnabhai |n the motoraccidenton 14.12.2002, theTribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.52,000/- as compensation along with jnterest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the ciaim petition tilE the dateof actuai payment. 3) The Tribunat on a close scrutiny of the entiFe evidence ied before it held that ciajmants' son Krishnabhai diedon account of the injuries sustainfeci by him in the motor accident on 1 4.12.2002; theaccident occurred due to rash and negligent driving ofthe driver of ttie offending vehicle Dumper bearing regjstration No.GJ-9'V/3973; as the fact of insurance of the above offending vehicie Dumper cpuid not be estabiished by theciaimants, the Insurance Company i.e the United India Insurance Company Umited was not iiable to pay compensation to the ciaimants and ;^) :N^,^/ .;,y l.^y ••:~^' c y the liability in| that behalf was that of the owner and driver of the offending vehicie Dumper. 4) The Tribunal considering the ageofthe deceased awarded a lumpsum GfRs.50,000/-ascompensationandRs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses. As such, a total sum pf Rs.52,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants. 5) Shri Vimleshi Bajpai, iearned <;ounsel for the appeilants vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred.in exonerating the insurer of the |Dumper from its ilabiiity to pay compensation to the daimantsandjin awarding lowcompensatlon ofRs.52,OOG/-onIy. 6) Shri Dasarath Gupta, ieamed counsel for respondent No.3 the United !ndia Insurance Company Limited on thepther hand supported thej award and contended that as' the claimgnts couid not establish the fact of Insurance 6f offending vehicle Dumper, the Tribunal has Fightiy exonerated the rnsurance Company from its iiabiljty to pay compensation to the ciaimants. 7) Ms Son ya Kuldeep. Searned counsel for respondent No.1, the driver oftt^e offendjng vehicie atso supported the submissions ofthe appelian s/claimants. -'T^-v 8) So far a? the finding recorded by the Tribunal ieading to the exoneratioh of|the United India Insurance Company Ljmited from its j" ' . ' ': ,1.''; ; • . • •: '. ' . liability t6 pay bompensafion to the cfaimants Is CQncemed, it is in the First infornnation Report produced by the ciaimants themsejves before the Tribunaf that the registration number of the Dumper invoived ih the accident was GJ-9-V/3973. It appears that the owner of the Dumper i.e (VS/s Khatu Shyam Construction CQmpany _J_-- > c .^•1-: c ^. -^. was having more than one Dumperat the tirne of the accident. The Engine number and Chasis , number of the Dumper j bearing registration number GJ-9-V/3Q73 are FIVIE 360547 and FME 484362 respectivelywhereasthe Engine number and Chasis number of the Dumper mentioned in the insurance policy Ex.P/2 producedbeforetheTribunalare 484285 and 367316 respectively; From the above factual scenario it is apparent that the insurance policy produced by the cSaimants before the Tribuna! did not coyer the offending vehicle bearing registration NO.GJ-9-V/3973 having EngineNo.FME 360547 andChasisNo.FME 484362. Asthe claimants could not establish the fact of insurance of the offending vehicle- Dumper, the Tribunal, in our opinion has rightiy exonerated the United tndia insurance Company from its iigbitlty to pay compensation to theclaimants. Consequentiy, the liabjiity in that behalf has been rightly held to be that of the owner and driver of the dumber bearing registration No. GJ-9-V/3973; 9) So far as the quantum of compensation is eonceme^ Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Syed Sbraham and others reported in 20G7 (4) T.A.C. 38S (S.C.) observed in paras 9 & 10 : "9, This Court in Lata Wadhwa whiie computing compensation made distinction between the deceased children faliing within theage group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 years. 10. In cases ofyoung chiidren oftenderage, in view of uncertainties about, ne'ither their income atthetimeofdeathnortheprospectsof the future increase in their income nor chances ^y^^^ ^^^ssh ly'o^: l&A^i c '^ -r^- c; ^' ^' iof advancement of their career are capable of proper determination 6n estimated basis. The reason is that at such an eariy age, the juncertainties in regard to thejr academic pursuits, achieyements jn careeFand thereafter advancement in life are sb many that nothing can be assumed cwith reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither is the income of the deceased child capabie of assessment on estimatedbasis nor isthe financial loss suffered by the parents capable of mathematical computatidn." - The Apex Court in the case ofOrientaJ InsuranceCo. Ltd. V. Syed Jbrahim and others (supra), held thatthecompensation of Rs.51,500/- was just and proper compensation for the death of a chiidaged about seven years. 10) Now reverting to the present ease, the compensation of Rs.52,000/-|awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the aboVe quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Orientai Insurance Co. Ltd, V. Syed ibrahim and others (supFa), we are satisfied, dpes not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 11) The ; appeat, filed by the appeilants/claimants for enhancemeht of the compensation, therefore, is I'tabie to be dismissedajnd ishereby dismjssed. 12} N6 orfcier as to costs. padma Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge