^ HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DMSiON BiNCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRi RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SiNHA. J. Misc. Appeai No. 178 of 2006 APPELLANT CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS NGN-APPLSCANTS Rameshwar Giri, Aged about 40 years, S/o Dashrath Giri. R/o, village Toria, P.S. Abhanpur, Tahsii & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus 1. Subodh Kumar Sinffh, Son of Bashisht Singh, Driver, R/o Gevra Project, Dipika, Korba, Tahsil & Dlstt. Korba (C.G.) 2. Ranvir Singh; S/o Ram Singh Owner, R/o Gevra Project, Dlpika, Korba, Tahsil & Distt. Korba (C.G.) . 3. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office; Korba (C.G.) Through Divisional Manager, Divisionai Office Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) EVIESCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER_SECTSON 173 OF THE MOTORVEHiCLE ACT 1988 Present: Shri Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appeEIant. None for respondents 1 & 2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsei for respondent No.3. ORDER (15th JuSy, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ.: Appel!ant Rameshwar Giri is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tenth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short "the Tribunal") vide award dated 23.11.2005, passed in Claim Case No. 26/2005. 2. As agalnst the compensation of Rs.70,00,000/- ciaimed by the appeilant/ ciaimant by filing a clalm petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for the death of his son Sanu Giri, aged about five years in the motor accident on 29.04.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation along with Interest @ 9% per annum in the event of faiiure of the insurer to pay the amount of compensation within a period of one month of the passing ofthe award. 3. Shri Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding iow compensation of Rs.50,000/- only as the appeilant's son Sanu Giri would have extended support to the appellant in hls oid age. 4. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the United Indla Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the deceased chiid was aged about five years only, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. The Apex Court whiieconsidering as to what wouid be the just and proper compensation for the death of a child aged about seven years in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed ^^^,, ^^^^y J- K- ^;' I Ibrahim and others reported in 2007 (4) T.A.C. 385 (S.C.) obsen/ed in paras 9 and 10: "9. This Court in Lata Wadhwa (2001) 8 SCC 197, while computing compensation made distinction between the deceased children faiiing within the age group of 5 fo 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 capabte of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an eariy age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achlevements in carrier and thereafter advancement in iife are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither is the income of the deceased child capabie of assessment on estimated basis nor is the • financial ioss suffered by the parents capable of mathematica! computatlon." The Apex Court in view of the above observations held that the compensation of Rs.51,500/- was just and proper compensation for the death of a child aged about seven years. 6. Now, reverting to the present case, admittediy the appellant's son Sanu Giri was aged about five years on the date of the accident. The compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribuna! when examined in the context of the above quoted ,<€SC-,'^ ;i j \...vy '^SK^!- 4 h: '" Subbu observations of the Apex Court in the case of OrientaS Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed ibrahim and others (supra), we are satisfied, does not cali for any enhancement in this appeai. 7. The appeal, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 8. No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge