|[ ''VS^, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, GJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appellants Claimants. MJsc.ADpeal No. 936 of 2005. 1. Smt. Durga Sahu, W/o Santosh Sahu, aged about 26 years, Profession House Wife. 2. Santosh Sahu, S/o Tizoo Ram Sahu, aged about 32 years. ^ Both are R/o Tatibandh Basti, Raipur P.S. Amanaka, Tahsil & District Raipur Respondents 3. VERSUS Sarvan Singh, S/o BaWs Singh, Profession Tanker Driver, R/o Ptot No.64, 1/15, M.I.G., Hiwari Lay-out, Nagpur (Maharashtra). Tarsen Singh, S/o Mathora Singh Saini, Profession - Tanker Owner, R/o Plot No.64, 1/15, M.I.G., Hiwari Layout, Nagpur (Maharashtra). The New India Insurance Comp.Ud. Branch Office, Nagpur (Maharashtra) (Through the Divisional Manager) Divisional Office, Kachahari Chowk, Jait Road, Raipur (C.G.). Misc. Aopeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Acf. Present: Ms. Somshukta Sarkar, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (03rd July, 2009) <^!3:3 •i.^'*^; i»3 «;S:i 1 / The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 1^ Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.04.2005, passed in Claim Case No.93/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.17,50,000/- claimed by the appeltants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased girl Ku. Sunita Sahu, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 24.05.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.58,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ctaim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Ms. Somshukla Sarkar, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low as the appellants' daughter Ku. Sunita Sahu was a brilliant student and had bright future. 4) Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and submitted that the compensation of Rs.58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is perfectlyin line with 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). 5) The Apex Court while considering the amount of just and proper compensationfor the death of a child aged about 7 years f Is^ I •%SB^ 8 -.ai,^^ j [3iO \s^^^-^'- ^^y.^.-i: in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Syed Ibrahim and others (Supra), 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 chitdren of tender age, jn 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 gdvancement 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." 6) Now reverting to the present case.the appellants' daughter Ku. Sunita Sahu was aged about 6 yeare on the date of the accident as shown in the post mortem report. The compensation of Rs.58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra), we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. :.,'%^-t:i/' subbu 7) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8) The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 9) No order as to costs. sd/- Ouef Justice Sd/- sunil Kumar Sinh Judge a '2- 3: 7