vi AwT fi$TW:§?iW €m\=%;wmyv ww mw:m RFJ y r . T Jrgqm (ww n wm k) wxwmnmmmmwn nagg.mx. (yagw . .. E U L “ 1 1 l i The following‘ order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceajsed boy Saurabh Sahgal, aged abOut 14 years are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 4‘“ Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Biiaspur (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide‘ award dated 25.08.2006, passed in Claim Ca§e No.90/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.17,25,G00/—'claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased boy Saurabh Sahgal, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on r 61.10.2605, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rsl ,95,uGD/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date r of the filing of the claim petitiOn till th‘e date of actual payment. 3) 'The Tribunal 'on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimants’ son Saurabh S'ahgal died on account. of the injuries sustained byvhim in the motor accident on 01.102005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G. 041/0760; as the above offending vehicie Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the National - Insurance Company Limited and the lnsurance Company could not . establish any :bize‘‘ach of the‘policy conditions; the insurance c, Company was iiable to pay the compensation to the claimants. y I 1 { I v 4) As the respondenis have no't filéed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribuna} have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunai assessed the income of the éeceased at Rs.15,000/— per annum on ihe basis of the notionai income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. By deducting 1/3“ of Rs.15,000/- towards the r personal expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.1D,GOO/— per annum. By ’muitiptying'the annuai dependency of Rs‘10,000/- with the muitipiier of 15, the compensation was worked outta Rs._1,50,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.45,00Gf-‘ under other heads, the Tribunat awarded a totai sum of Rs.1‘,95,DOO/— as compensation to the ctaimants for the death of their son Saurabh Sahgat in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rst ,95,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment: ‘ 6) Shri Maiay‘ Kumar Bhadurt, learned counsel for the appeilants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation ‘of Rs.1,95,00D/- only though _, appellants' son Saurabh Sahgal was a brilliant student and had a bright future ’and’would have extended great supportto the appellants in their old age, 7) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the National insurance Company Limited, the insurerof the offending t. k v @9 1 > I, vehic1e Truck, on the other hand supr‘Jorted the award and ' t contended that the compensation of Rs.1 ,$5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to‘ warrant i enhancement in this appeal. ‘ i 8) ln a motor accident ciaim case what is important is that the v; :i compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. lt should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. _ , 9) Now, we shail examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,95,0DOI-. awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) The appellants’ son was aged about 14 years on the date of the accident He was student of 10*“ standard. Though the ciaimants pleaded that their son inspite of being aged about 14 years only, used to earn Rs.2,DOD-2,500/— pet month from tuition, no reliable and cogent evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the above income of the deceased. Even otherwise, it ‘ is not believable that a boy aged about 14 years and student of 10th standard would be in a positionto impart coaching to other students. 11) The Apex t while considering as to what would beJhe iust and proper compensation for the death of a chiid aged about 7 r years in the case of Oriental insurance Co Ltd V Syed Ibrahim and others reported in 20G? (4) TAC 385 (SC) observed m * paras9&10 r /vfvf'u 1: ‘ i 1 I & l‘ ‘ i “9. This Court in Lata Wadhwa whi£e computing compensation made ‘distinctign between the deceased children failing withinithe age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of iiD to 15 years. 10‘ In cases of young chiidren of tender age, in View of uncertainties about, neither their ncome at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capabie of proper determination onve'stimated basis. The reason is that at such an eariy 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 th deceased child capable of assessment on estimated basis nor is the‘finanoial loss suffered by the parents capable of mathematical computation.” x x The Apex Court in the case of Orientai insurance Co. Ltd. ti. Syed lbrahim and others (supra), held that the compensation of Rs.51 ,SOOI- was just and proper compensation for the death of a child aged about seven years. 12) The compensation of Rs.1 ,95,0DO/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined inth’e context of the above quoted dictum of th Apex Court in the case of Orientai insurance Co. Ltd. Vt,Syed ibrahim and others (supra), and the fact that appellants’ son SaurabhvSahgal was aged about 14 years only and was a student t. e 4 i e I \ of 10‘“ standard, we are’satisfled, is just 41nd proper compensation and dees not can for any enhancement in ihis appeal. .l 13)\ As we do not find ‘any scope fEor enhancement of the t compensation awarded by the 'Tribunal,§ the appeal'filedby the appellants/claimants for enhancement of tE‘ne compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 14) No order as to costs. r ‘ ’ Sd/- Rang'nath Chandrakar Sd/- l Chief Justice .i Judge subbu