HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Misc. Appeal (C) No. 628of 2008 1. Shatruhan, s/o. Mohan Yadu, aged about 35 years. 2. Smt. Ahilyabai, w/o. Shatruhan Yadu, aged about 32 years. Both r/o. village Hiretara, Tahsil Dhamda, Distt. Durg (CG). .... Claimants VERSUS Respondents 1. Ghanshyam Yadav, s/o. Kartik Yadav, aged about 22 years, r/o. village Pisegaon, PS Phulgaon, Tahsil &Distt. Durg (CG). ... Driver of the vehicle 2. Shyamlal Pande, s/o. Shri D.R. Pandey, r/o. Ganjpara, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G). ... Owner of the vehicle. 3 The National Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, office at Akashganga, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (CG). Appeat under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act, 1988 Presen-t: Shri P.R. Patankar, counselfortheappellants. Shri S.C. Verma, counsel for respondentNo.3. ORDER (14th June, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The appellants are seeking for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 11 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 31.12.2007, passed in Claim Case No.3/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased boy Deepak aged about seven years, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 5.12.2006, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.95,700/- as compensation along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. ' 3) Shri P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.95,700/- only though the appellants' son Deepak would have extended great support to the appellants in their old age. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunat has further erred in reducing the compensation assessed on the basis of the finding of contributory negligence. 4) Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 - The National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the Z">%N ''•t \^ ^^^^* ^ -'-:-L"^cL^.^^'J^^, ^- .^ d^1 offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Syed Ibrahim and others, reported in 2007 (4) TAC-385 (SC), contended that the compensation of Rs.95,700/- awarded by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side. 5) The Apex Court while considering as to what would be the just and proper compensation for the death of a child aged about 7 years in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Syed Ibrahim and others, reported in 2007 (4) TAC-385 (SC) observed in paras 9 & 10 : "9. 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. 10. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, 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 capable of assessment on estimated basis nor is the financial loss suffered by the parents capable of mathematical computation." .^.wS'^^-. '•'t, "<:»\N Y.. '•£' 6) The compensation of Rs. 95.700/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context ofthe fact that the appellants' son Deepak admittedly was aged aboyt 7 years on the date of the accident and the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra), we are satisfied, does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 7) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 8) No order as to costs. Sd/- . 'Chief Justice Sdf- •N. Chandrakar Judge subbu X