FEE$H CGUR‘E‘ QF CH§'§A?T§SG§;RH QT EELA§PE§§ QEW$EGM EEMQEH HCB‘WELE S§§Ri RQJEEV GUP?A. Cd. & HQN’BLE SHR5 $UN§L KEMQR $§Ni‘m, J. Misc. Agaeag No. 232 a? 2W4 ‘ rem Singh, 3/0 Ba§a§<, Aged 3U years SmE. Fuiesh, Wis Pmm Singh Aged 27 yeafs. Ku. Rinké, Sic. Pram 3ingh Aged abeut 8 years. Km. Renu, SI’G. Prem Singh Aged aboui G6 years. Occupation Student Nilesh Kumazr, sic. Prem Singh Aged abeut G3 years. A§ Caste Gendi, occupation agricuKuraL R/oViHage Lachi RS. and Tahsii $urajpur Diestt. Safguja {0.6.} Versnm Mano; Kumar Sahu; SIG. Shri Prasad Sahu, aged about 32 yeam, Occupation driver Banarasi Prasad Sahu, S/o Shr§ Prasad 8ahu, Aged ahaui 3D years, Occupatéon owner of vehicle. The Orientai insurance Company Limited Ambikapur, Dietricf Sargug? (QGJ QPPEikL UNDER SECTEQN 173 @F THE MOTQR VEHICLES ACT RES?0§Q§ENT$ Pfesent ' Shri D.N. Prajapati, counse! for the appeiienis‘ ©R3ER {315‘ Jug: a 209$) The foiiowing order 43f the Coud wa$ passed by Rajiaav @iépEag €;J.: SM EN. Praiapati, ieamed counsei §or ihe appeliants is hearé an acimisaisn. The appeiiants are seeking enhancemeni of i‘he campewa'iicn awarded by the Sixth Additiona! Mamr Accidents C§aim$ Tyibunai, Sura}pur {for Shari “the Tribunal”) vide award dated 27.122Q03, passed ‘m Ciaim Case No. T/2/2003. 3. As against the compensation 0f Rs.5,00,0€JO/- ciaimed by the appei’iants! daimants, unforturrate parents, sisters and breiher of deaeaseti Akhiiesh Kumar, aged about 3—4 years by firing a ciaim petiiion under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his deaih 3o ’{he motor accident on 24062002, the Tribuna§ awarded a iotai sum of Rs.5§s50Q/— as compensation aiong with interest @ 6% per annum frem rne date of fiiing of the daim peiition tit! the eate of actuai paymen’z. 4. Shri DN Prajapati, iearned counsei for the appe§§ants vehementay argued that the Tribune} has erred in awarding row eompensaiion of ‘Rs.59,5OGI- only as deceased ehiid Aknriesh Kumar would have extended great support to his parents an their oid age. z 5. The Apex Coud whiie considering as to what wourd be the jesi and proper compensation for the death of a chiid aged about seven years in the case of Qrientai insurance Co: Ltd, ii. $yed ug- M maahim &ne§ Qmarg reported in 2w? {4) TAG. 383' {$3.} abgerved in paras. 9 and 1G: “9 This Court in Laia Wadhwa (X301 ) 8 SCC— 197, white compuiing compensaiian maa‘e disiénc‘tien between the deceased chiidren faiiing within the age group of 5 to 1O years and age group 0f 1O to i5 years. 1Q. in cases of ycung chiidren of tender age, in view ef uncertainties abound, neither iheir inceme at the time 0f death ner the prospects 0f the future increase in their inceme nor chances 0r” advancement er’ their career are capebte Gr? proper determination on estimated bests. The reason is that at such an eariy age, the uncertainties in regard t9 that? academic eureutte, achievements in carrier and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certaiety. Theretere, neither is the inceme of the deceased c’niid capabie of assessment on estimated easis nor is the financiai ioee suffered by the parents capabie of mathematical computation.” The Apex Court in View ef the abwe Observations heist that the compensation of Rs.51,50&!- was just ane proper compensation for the death of a chiid aged about seiren years. 5. New, reverting to the present case, admittediy deceased chiid Akhiiesh Kumar was aged about 3-4 years on the date of the accident. The compensation of Rs.59,500!— awarded by the Tribunat when examined in the context of the above quoted i i i {ibgervationg of the Apex Court in the case of GrieniaE Ensurame Ca, Lici. v. $yed lhfahim and others (supra); we afe sai'asf‘sed, i$ gusi and moper aompensation and does na’: caii fey any enhancemen: in this agpeai. ’f. The abpeak ihemfore, is liame to be éismissed and §$ hemby - dismissed summariiy. ; 3 w $ sw— j Sunil Kumar Sinha 3‘ Judge Jig” _ Sd/7 Chief JuStice