^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV 6UPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 36 of 2007 APPELLANTS (Claimants) ^ RESPONDENTS (Non-Applicants) 1. Hem Lal Dewangaon, age 40 yrs, S/o Shri Parshuram Dewangaon. 2. Smt. Sandhya Dewangaon, age 27 yrs, w/o Shri Hem Lal Dewangaon, Both are R/o VSIIage Dargaon, P.S. Bagbahra, Tahsil - Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus 1. Ramesh Kumar Sahu, age 23 yrs, S/o Raghunandan Sahu, by profession Driver, R/o. Ravan Bhata, Mandir Hasuad, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Driver of the Truck/ dumper No. C.G. 04/J73800) 2 Anil Jadwani, S/o. Shri Naresh Jadwani, R/o. D-243, Devendra Nagar, Sector -04, P.S. Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Owner of the Truck/ dumper No. C.G. 04/J/3800) 3 The National Insurance Com. Ltd., Divisional Office at Kachhari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Ins. Com. of the Truck/ dumper No. C.G. 04/J/3800) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLES ACT 1988 Present: Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel forthe appellants. Shri Shivendu Pandya. learned counsel for respondent No.1. 'one for respondent No. 2 though served. \^ ® Shri Ra| Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (21st August, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ.: This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short "the Tribunal") vide award dated 09.10.2006, passed in Claim Case No. 72/2006. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.20,25,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Ku.Jagriti, aged about five years by filing a claim petttion under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 07.03.2006, the Tribunal 'awarded a total sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% perannum from the dateof filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3. Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.60,000/- only though the appellants' daughter was a brilliant student and had a bright future. 4. The Apex Court while consjdering as to what would be the just and proper compensation for the death of a child aged about seven years in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed ^ ^.-. '^ 1 ) Ibrahim and others reported in 2007 (4) T.A.C. 38S (S.C.) observed in paras 9 and 10: "9. This Court in Lata Wadhwa (2001) 8 SCC 197, 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. In 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 carrier 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 g^sessment on estimated basis nor is the flnancial loss suffered by the parents capable of mathematical computation." The Apex Court in view of the above observations heid that the compensation of Rs.51,500/- was just and proper compensation for the death of a child aged about seven years. 5. Now, revertjng to the present case, admittedly the appellants' daughter Ku. Jagriti was aged about five years on the date of the accident. The compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the TribynaLwhen examined in the contexl of the above quoted ^^ observations of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim and others (supra), we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 6. The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissedand is hereby dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge nimmi