A.^-^. Aioii^' l^l' HIGH GOWET OF eHHAT'riSGARH AT BILASPUR DiyiSIQNBENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA,C.J.& HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellaht ResDondents Misc. ADpeal No. 958 of 2004 Smt. Seema Tirki, Wd/o. Ravel Tirki, ^ed about 25 years, R/o. viilage Bansajhal, P.S. Batauli, Distt. Surguja (CG). VERSUS 1 Ashok Kumar Singh, Sfe. Ramdato Singh, R/o. Post Baikunthpur, Mahalpara, Distt. Korea (CG). 2 Rayindra Singh Yaday, S/o. Ramd^ SSngh, |Rife. ^ |^^ ftte|alpsrayf3^t iaiil'a.mtt'^ui', |ych Nlfflwati, Post Soranig, P.S.TBIwipur, Distt.Chandi|i(UP). 3. The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd,, Manendragarh Road, negr Ambedkar Chowk, Post AmNltapur, Distt. Surguja(Chhattisgarh.). Present Miscellaneous ApBeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel fcrttieappNtent. ShriAnafidKestlS Wani,coUtiselforrespondents No.Tanct2. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counset for respondent No.3. ORDER >th (28mJanuary,2010) The following order of the Court was pa^ed by Rajeev<3u|rta, CJ. ^ This is claimanf's appeat for enhancement of the compensation awarded by Fifth Additionat Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 02.08.20)4, passed in Claim Case No.52/2004. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.10,(X),000/- Glaimed by the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate mother of decea^ child Yuzin Tirki, aged about6 yeare, by filing a claim petltion under Swtion 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 30.12.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% perannum. 3. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, leamed counsel for e appetlant vehemently argued thatthe Tribunal has erred in awardir^low compensation of Rs.50,000/- only though the deceased child was a briltiantstudent and had bright future. 4. Shri Shallendra Sharma, learned eounsel for re^)ondent No.3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Trlbunal is just and proper compensatjon in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. ShriAnandKesharwani,learnedcoun^lforrespondents No.1 and 2 also supported the impugned award. 6. The Apex Court while Gonsideringas to whatwould bethe just and proper compensation for the death of a child aged about 7 yeais in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ud. Vs 'A ;• .y^'^ •^' 'lr. ^- Syed Ibrahim and others, reported in 2007 (4) TAC^SS (SC) observed in paras 9 & 10: "9. This Court. in Lata Wadhwa wrtiile computlng compensation made distlnction betweeh the deceased chfldren 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 al 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 estimatedbasis. Thereason isthat at such an leariy age,tlie uncertainties in regard to their aeademic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement m life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. . Therefore, ne'rther is the income of the deceasad child capableof assessment on estimated basis nor is the financiat loss suffered by the (Mirents capable of mathematical computation." The Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurafice Co. Ltd. Vs Syed Ibrahim and others (supra) held that the TOmpensation of Rs.51,500/-was Justandproper compensation for the deathof a childaged about seven years. 7. Now reverting to the pr^ent case, admittectly, ttie appetlant's son Yuzin Tirid was ag«iabout 6 years on the date of the accident. The compensation ofRs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examlned in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Courtin the case ofOriental tnsurance Co. ]';",ti»^"% "^ ^ '^ ^ i. y s :k^'^y 'al^i-Ii!.ffii< 4 "X Ltd., (supra), we are satisfied, isjust andproper compensation in the facts and circumstancesofthe present case and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 8. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded.by the Tribunal. 9. The appeal filed by Uie appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the cornpensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed . 10. No order as to costs. __ Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Ju^ge i'aii!:"' T1'11'll1l3(TiStS S /