^ OF AT DIVSSIONBENCH GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J AppelEants Claimants I x (Non appiicants) Misc Appea! fCl No. 249 1. Hansram Dadsena, age 40 yrs, s/o Fhjrtu Dadsena, by profession Cloth merchant. 2. Smt. Usha Dadsena, age 35 yrs, w/o Shri Hansram Dadsena, by profession House wife. Both the above appeliants are r/o viliage Janghora, P.S. Plthora, Tahsll & Distt. Mahasamund C.G. 1. Goutam Patel, s/o Shri Damrudhar Patei, age 32 yrs, r/o village Dingepur, P.S. Pithora, Tahsil & distt. Mahasamund C.G. [Driver of Piatlna Bajaj No.C.G.-04/CQ- 2260] 2 Hargovind Patei, s/o Shri Jogiram Patei, R/o viilage Kumharimunda, P.S. Pithora, Tahsil & distt. Mahasamund C.G. [Owner of Piatina Bajaj No.C.G.-04/CQ- 2260] 3 The !FCO-TOK!0 General jnsurance Com. Ltd., Divisional Officer, 3rd floor, shop no. 345-347, Lal Ganga ShoppEng Compiex, G.E. Road, Raipur, distt. Raipur C.G. [Ins. Com. of Platlna Bajaj No.C.G.- 04/CQ-2260] Misceilaneoys ADpeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act .^i^—^^. • /^^."%. I 1 Y;fc5' ^' Present : Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel forthe appeilants. None for respondents No. 1 and 2 though served. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, counsel for respondent No.3. (23rd June, 2-011) This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident CJaims Tribuna!, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 21.06.2007, passed in CIaim Case No.01/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,61,000/- ciaimed by the appeilants/ciaimants, unfortunate parents of deceased boy Roshania! Dadsena aged about 11 years by fijing a clalm petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death on 04.12.2006 on account ofthe injuries sustained by him in the motor acddent on 27.11.2006, the Tribunai awarded a totai sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date ofthe filing ofthe ciaim petition tlll the date of actuai payment. 3) Shri J.A. Lohani, iearned counsei for the appeljants vehementiy argued that the Tribunai has erred in awardlng low compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- only though the appeiiants' son Roshanial Dadsena was a briiliant student and had a bright future and would have extended great support to the appeliants in their dld-age. 1 ^M^?^. r ^ -—••••,:^ ^ ;A -:. . ;^; .^ is^. ^v'^' ^ ^'' 4) Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, iearned counsei for respondent No.3 the Ifco-Tokio Generai Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicie IVIotorcycie on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-, awarded by the Tribuna! is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5) The Apex Court while considering as to what would be the just and proper compensation for the death of a chiid aged about 7 years in the case of Oriental Insurance Co; Ltd. V. Syed IbrahisTi and ot'ners reported in 2007 (4) T.A.C. 385 (S.C.) observed in paras 9 & 10 : "9. This Court in Lata Wadhwa whiie computing compensation made distinction between the deceased chjla'ren falling within the age group of 5 to 10 years and age Qroup of 10 to 15 years. 10. in cases of young chiidren of tender age, in view of uncertainties about, 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 capabie of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an eariy age, the uncertainties in regard to their academlc pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, nelther is the Income of the deceased child capabie of assessment on estimated basis nor is the financlai loss suffered 4 iM^SSSSbt \ by the parents capabie of mathematical computation." The Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Syed SbrahirYi others (supra), held that the compensation of Rs.51,500/- was just and proper compensation for the death of a child aged about seven years. 6) The compensation of Rs.1 ,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunai when examined in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Orienta! Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Syed Ibrahlm and others (supra), and the fact that the appellants' son, deceased Roshanial Dadsena was aged about 11 years only on the date of the accident, we are satisfled, does not cal! for any enhancement in this appeai. 7) As we do not find any for. snhancernent of the compensation by the Tribunal, the filed by the appeilants/daimsnts .for enhancement of the compensation is liabie to be-dlsmlssed and is hereby'dismissed. 8) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge nimmi