HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIWSION BENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHR1 SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No, 805 of2004 APPELLANT CLAIMANT (1) Bhupendra Naik, S/o Dewcharan Lal Verma, Aged about 65 years, (2) Narendra Kumar Verma, S/o Dewcharan Lal Verma, Aged about- 54 years, (3) Shailendra Kumar Verma, S/o Dewcharan Lal Verma, aged about 48 years, All residents of village Devniketan, Ramkund Para, Chiruldih Ward, tn front of Maharastra Bhawan, Raipur Versus (1) Manoj Bhal Drona, S/o Nathalala Bhai, Occupation - Truck Driver, R/o Village IVIathapar, Manharpur, Jamnagar Road, Rajkot (Gujrat). .1 (2) Dilip MansurBhai Dhangar, Address 5 Mundabadi, Rajkot (Gujrat) Vehicle Tanker No.GTF 3554, Reglstered (3) The United India Insurance ^ Company Limited, Branch Rajkot, Through: Madina Building Kachahari Chowk, Raipur, C.G. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE IVIOTORVEHICLESACT. 1988 ••<' Present: A.S. Singraul, leamed counsel for the appellants. RESPONDENT NQN APPUCANTS ORDER ith (19tnNovember,2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. T Shri AS Singraul, counsel for the appellants is heard on MCP No.1 ^3/2004, a petition for condonation of delay in fiting the appeal. 2) On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) MCP No.1453/2004, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.01.2004 passed in Claim Case No.170/2002. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.5,30,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants for the death of Aman Kumar, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.52,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date offiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri AS Singraul, learned counsel for the appellants /• vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.52,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal is too low as deceased Aman Kumar would have provided support to the appetlants/claimanfs, who are his uncles in their old age. 8) The Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Syed Ibrahimand others reported in 2007 (4) TAC 385 (SC), while assessing just and proper •;1 -tir compensatiQn in the said case for the death of a child aged about 7 years observed in paras 8 and 9: "8. This Court in Lata Wadhwa's (supra) while computing compeftsation made distinction between deceased children falling within the age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 years. 9. In cases of young children of tenderage, in . vlew of the uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement oftheir careerare 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 the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment of estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capabie of mathematical computation." 9) Deceased child Aman Kumar was aged about 9 years on the date of accident. The claimants are his uncles aged about 65 years, 54 years and 48years. Deceased Aman Kumar was a student at the relevant time. 10) The compensation oT-Rs.52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined In the context ofthe above mentioned dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Ibrahim (supra); and the above mentioned broad features ofthe case, we are satisfied that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper comEensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. fv'^KS^: •• 11) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed symmarily. Sd/- Chief Justice r' A padma Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge r =w3^ "Es °y(;3^s;