^ 90 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.CNo.1677 of 2008 APPELLANTS RESPQNDENTS Maniram Sahu and others. VERSUS Purushottam Prasad and another M.A.CNp,1676pf_2008 APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS Rohit Kumar and others. VERSUS Purushottam Prasad and another Award for consideration Honlb!e_SnnEaieey_Gupta^CJ. J ^h^^Y^i- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge i.D 710/201 T Post for pronouncement on (1/1 0/2011 Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge [0/10/2011 ^c^^ M ^ . ^ g, ^-^ss^, i |ISfiP|J Vc^!^ ^=» ^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BELASPUR APPELLANTS Ciasmants <& RESPQNDENTS I.A.CNo.1677 of 2008 1. Maniram Sahu, son of Budhram Sahu, aged about 30 years. 2. Ku. Puja Sahu, daughter of Maniram Sahu, aged about 9 years. 3. Ku. Arti Sahu, daughter of Maniram Sahu, aged about 7 years. Appeilant No. 2 & 3 being minors through their legal guardian father Shri Maniram Sahu. AII residents near Sai Mandir, Chantideeh, Sarkanda, Biiaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Versus 1. Puroshottam Prasad, son of Shri Sudharam, resident of Viliage Pachpedi, Via Champa, District Korba/Chhattisgarh. 2. Divisiona! Manager, The Oriental Assurance Company Limited, through Divisional Qffice, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Present : Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for the appeilants. Shri Sudhir Agrawal with Shri P. Dutta, Advocates for respondent No. 2. & M.A.C No.1876 of 2008 APPELLANTS 1. Rohit Kumar, spn of Mukhiram Sahu, aged about 32 years. 2. Smt. Geeta Bai, wife of Rohit Kumar, aged about 28 years. 3. Ku. Ritu, daughter of Rohit Kumar Sahu, aged about 7 years. Appellant No. 3 being minor through her legal guardian father Shri Rohit KumarSahu. ^ "%^2y o^ RESPONDEMTS All residents near Sai Mandir, Chanttdeeh, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Biiaspur, Chhattisgarh. Versys 1. Puroshottam Prasad, son of Shri Sudharam, resident of .Viilage Pachpedi; Via Champa, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2. Divisional Manager, The Orienta! Assurance Company Limited, through Divlslonal Office, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. APPEAL_UNDER_SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,1988 DB: Hon'bSe Shri Rajeev Gupta, CJ & Hon'bSe Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. Present : Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Sudhir Agravva! wlth Shri P. Dutta, Advocates for respondent No. 2. AWARD (Delivered on ^ /10/2011) Per: M.K. Agarwal, J 1. MAC Nos. 1677/08 and 1676/08 are being disposec3 of by this common award as the common facts and issues are involved in both the appeais and are arising out same accident. 2. As against compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- claimed by Ku. Puja and Arti Sahu by filing claim case No. 193/2007 for the injuries sustained by them in the motor accldent on 25.03.2007, the Tribunai has awarded a total sum of Rs.24,500/- in t'avour of Ku. Puja Sahu and Rs.1500/- in / favour of Ku. Arti Sahu along with interest @ 7 percent per annum from the date of application till its actuai payment. 3. By filing M.A.C. No.1677 of 2008, Ku. Puja and Ku. Arti Sahu are seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in their favour. 4. As against compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- claimed by the parents of deceased Ku. Versha for her death in the motor accident and by Ku. Ritu for the injuries sustained by her in the above accident by filing ciaim case No.201/2007, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the death of Ku. Versha and Rs.2,000/- for the injuries sustained by Ku. Ritu, along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application til! its actua! payment. 5. M.A.C.No.1676 of 2008 is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunai, on a close scrutiny of the evidence !ed, held : the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver ot' Matador (Puroshottam Prasad) bearing registration No. CG-04-ZB-2922; Oriental Assurance Company Ltd. liabie for payment of compensation as it could not establish violation of any policy conditions; awarded a total sum of Rs. 26,000/- as compensation in ciaim case No. 193/07 (MAC No. 1677/08) and Rs. 1,02,000/- in claim case No. 201/07 (MAC No. 1676/08) 4 aiong with interest @ 7 percent per annum from the date of application ti!l its actuai payment in both the ciaim cases. 7. Shri Amrito Das, learned counsei appearing for the appeilants/ciaimants vehemently argued: the Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.1500/- only for the injuries sustainsd by Ku. Art'i Sahu and Rs.2000/- oniy for the Injuries sustained by Ku. Ritu Sahu, which deserves to be suitabiy enhanced. 8. On the other hand, Sudhir Agrawa! and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing tbr the respondent No. 2/The Orientai Assurance Cornpany supported the award impugned and submitted in the facts and circumstances of both the cases the amount awarded by the Tribunai are just and proper compensation and do not call for any interference. 9. In order to exarnine whether or not the Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation in the facts and clrcumstances of the above cases, we have perused the records of the Tribunai including award impugned. 10. Admittedly, Ku. Puja did nof suffer from any permanent disabitity on account of fracture of femur bone of right thigh. Dr. Nitin Junena (A.W.2), examined by the claimants, only proved medicat expenses to the extent of Rs.9,500/- incurred in her treatment. Therefore, the compensation of ftl^ ~^' y/ ^yy 't &%%;i <^> Rs.24,500/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. 11. Ku. Versha, aged about 11 years, who, admittedly, was not having any independent income of her own and was dependent on her parents. 12. The Apex Court whiie considering as to what would be the just and proper compensation for the death of a child aged about 7 years in the Onental Snswance Co. LtcS. v. Syecf ibrahlm and others reported in 2007 AIR SCW 6187 observed in paras 9 & 10: "8. This Court in Lata Wadhwa while computing compensation made distinction between the deceased children falling within the age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 years. 9. In cases of young chiidren of 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 estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither is the income of the deceased child capabie of assessment on estimate basis nor is the financial loss suffered by the parents capable of mathematical computation." .^--^-^^^ ^. "s"^^. .^ ""'-;.".... ',,. y/ \,,^y 13. Compensation of Rs.1 ,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Ku. Versha when examined in the context of above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim and others (supra) and the fact that deceased Ku. Versha was aged about 11 years only on the date of accident, we are satisfied, does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 14. Neverthetess, the compensation of Rs.1500/- awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by Ku. Arti Sahu in claim case No. 193/2007 and Rs.2000/- awarded to Ku. Ritu for the injuries sustained by her is certainly on lower side. 15. Looking to the number and nature of injuries sustained by Ku. Arti Sahu and Ku. Ritu Sahu in the above accident, in our opinion, a further award of Rs.10,000/- each inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the amount awarded to them by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe case. 16. For the foregoing, both the appeats are aliowed in part. Claimants Ku. Arti Sahu in M.A.C. No. 1677/2008 and Ku. Ritu Sahu in M.A.C.No.1676/2008 are awarded a further sum of Rs.10,000/- each inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation, over and above 7 t'ne amount awarded by the Tribunal. Rest of the conditioris of the award shali remain intact. 17. The respondent No.2/0riental Assurance Company Limited is granted three months time for depositing the above enhanced amount of compensation before the concerned Claims Tribunal. 18. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge