Q HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILA$PUR DEVISI0N BEN"H Cm‘am \: HON BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA C J & HON BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA J Wiisc. Apneai No. 42 of 2W6 QPPELLANTS 1 Mahendra Kuman S/o Gowardhan {CLARMANT3} Prasad Dub’ey, Aged abaut 40 years. Savitri Bai W/o Mahendra Kumar Dubey, Aged a ut 35 years Occupation Labour & House Wife Both resident of viilage Chhirha, PO. Chhirha, PS. Nawagarh, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (cs) Versus Prahaiad srngh Rajpoot, Son of Krishna Singh, Aged aboui 31 years, R/o ViHage Maggaon, P.O. Chhirha, Tahsii Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) RESPONDEN’?S (Nair-£gglicams) (DRIVER & OWNER OF TRACTOR) United Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Mencekar Compiex, Raiendra Nagar Chowk, Biiaspur, District Biiaspur (C.G.) (INSURER) Sarwarai Sinoh S/o Dheiau Singh, Kged agent 33 years, R/o. Viiiage Chote Pauni, P.O. Bhareva, RS. & Tahsii Mungeii District Biiaspur (CG) {TROLLEY OWR) NE MISCELLANEDUS APPEAL UNDER $EC B ION 1T3 OF THE MDT$R VEHICL‘S ACT 1°88 Shri Atanu Ghosh teamed counsei r’or the appeiiants. None for respondents No. 1 8: 3. Shri 8anjay S. Agrawai, learned counsei for respondent No.2. Present : ORDER {23rd My, 2999} \ The following order of the Court was passed by Raieev Gupta, C..§.: Appeilan’ts Mahendra Kumar and Savitri Bai, unfortunate parents of deceased child Kamalkant Dubey @ Vikki, aged about 1O years are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additionai Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunal, Bemetara, District Durg (for short “the Tribunai") vide award dated 11.1 1 .2005, passed in Ciaim Case N0. 3112095. 2‘ As against the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- ciaimed by the appeitants/ ciaimants by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the death of their son Kamalkant Dubey @ Vikki, in the motor accident on 17.G2.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.52,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tiil the date of actual payment. 3. The Tribunal found that deceased chiid Kamalkant Dubey @ Vikki was travelling in the Trolley attached to the Tractor and no document was produced before the Tribunal to estabiish that the Trotley was insured. The Tribunai, therefore, exonerated the insurance Company of its tiabitity to pay compensation to the claimants and the owner and driver of the Tractor Troiley were held iiabie to pay compensation to the claimants. /(x( ‘ @ 4. Shri Atanu Ghosh, learned counsel for the appeuants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.52,000/— oniy as deceased Kamaikant Dubey @ Vikki was a brilliant student and had a bright future. Learned l counsel further submitted that appellants’ son Kamalkant Dubey @ Vikki would have extended support to the appeilants in their old age. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurance Company of its liabiiity to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawai, learned counsei for respondent No.2 The United insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the Trolley in which the deceased child was travelling was never insured with the Insurance Company, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance Company of its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 6r it is not in dispute that deceased Kamalkant Dubey @ Vikki was travelling in the Trolley attached to the Tractor. Though a policy of insurance, (Ex-DI2) of the Tractor was produced before the Tribunal, no policy was produced before the Tribunal to indicate that the Trolley in question was also insured. it ls also relevant here to mention that the owner of the Tractor is respondent No.1 Prahaiad Singh Rajpoot, whereas the owner‘of the Trolley is respondent No.3 Sarwaraj Singh. 7. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribune! that the Troiiey, in which deceased child Kameikant Dubey @ Vikki was traveliing, was not insured at the reievant time and as such the insurance Company was not iiabie to pay compensation to the ciaimants. 8. The compensation of Rs.52,0001— when examined in the context of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Syed tbrahim and others regoorted in 299? (4) T.A.C. 385 ($6.), wherein compensation oi $51,503!- was found to be just and proper compensation for the death of a chiid aged about seven years, we are satisfied, does not caii for any enhancement in this appeal. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeai tiled by the appeiiantsi ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. Sdl— Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Chief Justice Judge nlmml