^ fh Bencfr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR g5? APPELLANT S ^,(CLAIMANTS) '~^.^// .^'/•t7Z\ ^y/'z1.' ^•/y M.A.(C.) No..A?.?....../2011 1) Gaind Das Manikpuri, aged about 39 years, S/o Koushal Das Manikpuri, ^S} Sati Bai Manikpuri, aged about 26 years, W/o Gaind Das Manikpuri, Both R/o Nagar Nigam, Durg, Ward, Urla, Police Station Pulgaon, Post Mohan Nagar Durg, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) Versus .^ESPONDENTS ^ Saheb Das Manikpuri, aged about 28 years, S/o Shri Keju Das Manikpuri, R/o Nagar Nigam Ward, Sangam Chowk/ Near High School Urla, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg (C.G.) '2y Khursid Ali S/ o Saiyad Faij Ali, aged about 40 years, R/o Kachchari Road, Durg, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) I.C.I.C.I Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Throguh Branch Manager, Pukhraj Gompound, Upon State Bank of Indore, Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.L 6 •^^: MEMO OF MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AWARD i 'y^^ 'ys 2^^ ^ HjGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. rONo. 858 of 2011 ^ APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS Gained Das Manikpuri & another VERSUS Saheb Das Manikpuri & others (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) (SB: Hon'ble IVIr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri C.R. Sahu, counsel forthe appellants. QRAJL.QRDER (Passedon 09.68.2011) Heard on I.A. No. 1/2011 which js an applicatSon for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. ». 2. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appellant is succeeded In explaining the cause of delay in filing the appeal and, therefore, the application {I.A. No.1/2011} is allowed. Delay in the filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Heard on admission. 4. This js claimants' appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded by Xlth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg, District Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 27/2009 vide award dated 05.03.2011. 5. As against compensation of Rs. 3,45,000/- claimed by the clajmants i.e. unfortunate parents of deceased Domesh, aged about 5 years, by filing application before the TribunaJ under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act') for the death of deceased in the motor accident on 3.3.2009, the Tribunal assessed and / . awarded total sum of Rs. 52,000/- along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 6. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, material avallable on the record and submissions of the parties, held : the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Metadoor bearing registration No. CG-16-ZB/0119; Domesh, aged about 5 years, died on account of injuries sustained in the said acoident; the respondent No. 4/insurance company Jiable for paymertt of compensation as the insurance company has failed to prove violation of policy conditions; assessed and awarded total sum of Rs. 52,000/- as compensatlon in favour of claimants as against the respondent No, 3 i.e. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited. 7. Shri Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants woutd submit : the Tribunal has fallen in error in awarding low amount of compensation of Rs. 52,000/- only which deserves to be sujtably enhanced. 8. I have hearcj the counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the award impugned as well as record of the Tribunal. 9. Undisputedly the age of deceased Domesh was 5 years at the time of accident. The Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Syed Ibrahim (Supra) has affirmed the award of learned Tribunal awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 51,500/- tn case of death of child of 4 years old. The Supreme Court has further held in para 9 & 10 of its judgment as under : <lD "9. 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 15years. 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 jncrease in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are oapable 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 Itfe are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither is the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor Js the financial loss suffered by the parents capable of mathematical computation." 10. By applying the ratio of law settled by the Supreme Court in the above referred case, to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the considered opinion of this court, the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is no scope of enhancement in the award. Accordingly the appeal preferred by the claimants is IJable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ^ Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge