IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Aggeal §C) No. 1581 of 2008 Aggeai under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Present: Shri Abhishek Sharma, counsel for the appellants. Shri Manish Upadhyay, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (21“ June, 201 1) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Aggellants 1. Ram Pyara son of 36 Claimants aged about 36 years; 2. Nirmala Bai wife of Ram Pyara Rajak, aged about 32 years; Both residents of viHage Pipariya, district Tahsil Khairagarh, Rajnandgaon C.G. VERSUS Resgondents 1. Rajesh Tamrakar son of late Shri Amar Singh Tamrakar, resident of district Gandai Pandariya, Rajnandgaon C‘G. VEHICLE OWNER OF THE 2. Orientai insurance Company Kamthi Line, Limited, Branch Omce Rajnandgaon C.G. INSURER Learned counsel {pr the parties are heard on l.A.No.01/2008, an application for condonation of the de!ay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) l.A.No.O1/2008, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Abhishek Sharmai learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, district Rainandgaon (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 02.04.2008, passed in Claim Case No.29/2007. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.5,20,000/— claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased girl Dharmin Bai aged about five years, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 26.02.2005, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.52,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment, \LK 7) Shri Abhishek Sharmawleamed counsel for the appeHants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.52,000/- only. _ 8) 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 lbrahim 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 thetime 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 l 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 suffered by the parents capable of mathematical 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 child aged about seven years. 9) The compensation of Rs.52,000/— awarded by the Tribunat when examined in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra), and the fact that the appellants’ daughter Dharmin Bai was aged about only 5 years on the date of the accident, we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case and does not call for any enhancement in this subbu appeal. 10) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sdl- Sd/— R.N. Chandrakar Chief Justice Judge