M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTlsGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Aggeal No. 1148 of 2003 CORAM: APPELLANTS Applicants 1. Phoolchand‘Kothari, age 66 years, s/o late Shri Labhchandji Kothari (Father of deceased) 2. Smt. Leela Bai Kothari, 6O age years w/o. Shri Phoolchand Kothari Kothari (Mother of deceased) Address : Phoolchand Kothari Jabarchand &‘ Company Company Chowk, Rajnandgaon. VERSUS Respondents ‘Non-appiicants 1. Balwant Singh s/o._ not known, aged about 55 years, resident of Colony, Gopal Nagar, Bhusawal, (Maharashtra), Father of of deceased R-1. Sheikh Abdul Rahman, s/o Sheikh Kadar village : Salegaon — Bhushawal, distt. Jalgaon (M.S.) Driver of Truck No.MWD—9601 3 The New India lnsurance Company Ltd., through Branch Unit Manager, Unit No.160703, 4/752, First Floo'r, Dr. Rote Building, Jhankar Road, Bhushaval 425201., Distt. Jalgaon (M.S.) lnsurer of Tata Diesel Truck No. MWD-9601. The New lndia Assurance Company Ltd. through Branch Manager, Branch Office, First Floor, Kamptee Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Branch Office of insurance Company at Rajnandgaon. 3‘7 MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR . VEHICLES ACT Present: Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Iearned counsel for the appellants. Shrl Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel ‘with Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, learned counsel f0 respondents No.3 & 4. ORDER (15m December, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, c.J. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 29.08.2003, passed in Claim Case No.24512002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.3,04,500/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate grandparents of deceased child Ku.Arju Kothari, aged about 5 years; by tiling a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 01.05.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total s‘um of Rs.52,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel [for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.52,000/« only. "\f 4) Shri Shree Kumar Agrawai, Ieamed Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, learned counse! for respondents No.3 & 4 — The New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supponed the award and contended that as the deceased child _ Ku.Arju Kothari was aged about 5 years only, the compensation of Rs.52,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5) The Apex Court while considering as to what would be the just and proper compensation for the death of a child aged about 7 years in the case of Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Syed Ibrahim and others, reported in 2007 (4) TAG-385 (SC) 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. ln 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 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 ,_ WW . . . . 4r f‘ suffered by the parents capable of mathematica! computation.” ' The Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Syed Ibrahim and others (supra) held that the compensation of Rs.51 ,500/- was just and proper compensation for the death of a chitd aged about seven years. 6) The compensation of Rs.52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the fact that deceased child Ku.Arju Kothari, was aged about 5 years only and in view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra), we are satisned, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case - and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 7) We, therefore, do not fund any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8) The appeal tiled by the appellants! claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, ls liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 9) No order as to costs. ix ———xi, , 7, 7 Sdl— \.;...t., f Sd/f § Sunil Kumar Smha ' Chief Justice *Judge r a padma . ’ " ** ,7 7,7 r . ‘r