''B! r?-1 HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR DIVISIONBENCH BLESHRI RAJEEVQUPTA,CJ. BLE SHRI SUNIL I ,J. ClaimantBefore the Tribunal Mahendra Kumar, S/o Dha! Singh DesHmukh, Caste — Kurmi, aged about 40 years, Smt Urwashi, W/o Mahendra Kumar Deshmukh, Gaste - Kurmi, aged about35years Both R/o Village - Kova, Tah. & P.S. Doundilohara, Distt Dui^ (CG) RESPONDENT NQN-APPLICANT Before the Tribunal 2 Kartik Ram S/o Panchram Sahu, aged afciout 25 years, R/o Village - Taroud, P.S. & Tah. Balod; Distt Dui^ (CG)..: ..: , '• .' , ; Driver of the Truck No. CG 07-ZC 3513 Uderam S/o Shri Hariram Sahu, aged about 50 years, R/o are present Taroud, P.S. STah. Balod, Distt Dui^ :<CG),. .,:;.• .,'..!: '•;;:!:' Registered Owner of the Truck No. C.G.07ZC-3513 Nafional ?lnsyrance Company Limited Through—Branch Manager Station Road, Distt Durg (CG) Insurer ofthe vetaicle Truck No.CG 07 ZC-3513 " r Miscellaneous Appea! U/S 173 of the Motor VehiGle Act Present: Shri Jitendra ©ypfa,learned counsel forthe appellants. ;, ^ • ORDER ith (24Inf:ebryary,2p09) The following order' ;of RaJeev:Qupta,,'<i.d.:':'' '^y ' • jthe Court was "f- ^ l^. .\ • Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admissidn. 2) The appellants, unfortunate parents of deceased Om Prakash^are seeking ;enhancement 6f the eompensation awarded by the Additional Motor ftGcident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Balod, Distt. Dui^ (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.11.2008, passedinClaimCase N0:25/2008. 3) The ciaimants clalmed compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- by filing aclaim petition under Section 166 ofthe MotorVehicles Act, for the death of their son Om Prakash, aged about 5 years in the motor accidention 04.03.2008, when he was dashed by the offending vehicle Truek bearing registration No.C,G.Q7 ZC-3513, resulting in his inistantaheous aeath on the spot itself; The Glaimants pteaded that Om Prakash was thelr only son and he would bave extended support to them in their old ags. 4) The driver, owner and insurer of the offendirig vehicle Truck contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants OR fthe plea that deeeased'ctiild was negligent in crossing the road and as such was responsible forthe accident. The Insurer tookthe further plea that the driver of the Truck was not holding a validi driving licence and tKe Truck was beingplied in breachofthelpolicyconditions. 5) The Tribunal on aclose serutjny of theevidehce led Before itheldthattheGlaimants'sonOmF'rakashdiedonaccoi.intofthe injuriessustainedbyhiminthemotoraccidenton 04.03.2008; the driver of the ofTending vetiicletTcuck was responsible!f@r the -z _i- /'^fS^ '%- fff'' '"^ ', • S is—•SS'SSft.' 1@. ^l »..-' accident; and asthe offending vehicle Truckon the date qf the accident was insured with National Insurance Company Limited, the tnsurance Company was liable to pay compensation tp the claimants. The Tribunal relying upon the dictum ofthe Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Syed Ibrahim and others, reported in 2097 (4) TAC 385 (SC), awarded compensation of Rs.52,000/- to the claimants along with interest @ 6% perannum from the date of fiiing of the ciaim petition til She date of actual payment. 6) Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for theappe!lants veheimently argued that the compensation of Rs.52,000/- awarded by the Tribynal is too low as deceased chlld Om Prakash would have supported to the claimants intheir old age. 7) Admittedly.appellants'sonOmPrakashwasagedabout five years on the date of the accident. The Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim and others (supra) while considering the compensation av/ardable in thesaid case where a child aged about seven years lost his life in the accident observed in paras 7, 8 and 9: "7. In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecunlary benefit derived by the parents during the child's life-time. But this will not necessarilybar the parents' claim and prospective ioss will find a valid claim provided the parents establish that they had a reasonableexpectationofpecuniarybenefitifthechildhad lived. This principlewas laid down by the House of Lords In the famous case of Taff Vale Rly. Vs Jen/ons,(1913) AC 1, and Lord Atkinsonsaid thus: l "......,.. all' that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation. of pecuniary benefitshould be entertained t>y ^l ?.-• the person who sues. it is quite true that the existenceof this expectation is an inference of fact-there must be a basis of fact fromwhich the inference can reasonably be drawn, but 1 hvish toexpress my emphotic dissent from the proposition that it is necessary that two of the facts without which the Inferenee cannot be drawn are, first that the deceased earned money in the past, and, second, that he or she contributed to the support of the plajntiff. These are, no doubt, pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence; and the necessary' inference can 1 think, be drawn from circumstances other than and different from them." (See Lata Wadhwa and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Ors., 2001 (8) SCC 197: 2002 (1) TAC 138." 8. This Court in Lata Wadhwa's case (supra) while computing compensation made distinction between 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 children of tender age, in view of uncertainties ahound, neither their income at the tlme of death nor the p spects of the iuture increase in their income nor chances of advaricement of their career are capabie of proper determinationon estimated basis. The reason is that atsuch anearly age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits,achlevements in career and thereafter advancement !n life, are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the ineome of the deceased chi!d is capable of assessment of estimated basis nor the financjal loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation." 8) Now reverting to the present case, the compensation of Rs.52,000/- awarded by the Tribunat when examined in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case 'of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra) and the fact that the claimants' child Om Prakash wasaged five years onlyon the date of the accident, we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 9) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by tbe Tribunal. The appeal flted by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is tiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu ^ ;-::- .\