o' 1.^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA,C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS Misc. Appeal (Ct No. 500 of 2007 1. Arjun Ram Dhruv son of late Shri Hariram Dhruv, aged about 36 years; 2. Smt. Laleshwari Bai wife of Shri Arjun Ram Dhruv, aged about 34 years; Both are residents of village Tarsiva, Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Versus 1. Gend Lal Sahu son of Shri Sohan Lal Sahu, resident of viilage Nawagaon, Police Station Arjuni, district Dhamtari (C.G.) 2. Mrityunjay Dani son of Shri Hem Shankar Dani, resident of Bagdehi, Tahsil Kurud, district Dhamtari (C.G.) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, near Adarsha Bal Mandir, Dhamtari (C.G.) MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 (21 OF THE IV10TORVEHICLE ACT. 1988 Present: Shri S.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. None for respondent No.3. ORDER >nd (2"° September, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Aceidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, (for short, "the Tribunal') vide award dated 03.04.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 135/2006. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.5,21 ,(MO/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased chBd Jagatram Dhruv, aged about 5-6 years by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act, for his death in the motor accident on 23.08.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.62,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actua! payment. 3. Shri S.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.62,000/- only as the deceased child would have extended great support to his parents in their oid age. 4. The Apex Court while considering as to what would be the just and proper amount of compensation for the death of a child aged about seven years in the motor accident in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Syed Ibrahim and others reported in 2007 (4) T.A.C. 385 (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 chBdren falling within the age group of 5 to 10 yeare and age group of 10 to 15 yeare. ..'•A^-:' ."^. '^ ^ '."WS^, S 10. In cases of young chikiren of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the Tuture 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 academte pursuits, achievements in carrier and thereafter advancement in tife 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.51,5(X)/- was just and proper compensation for the death of a chlld aged about seven years. 5. Now, reverting to the present case, admittedly the appellants' child Jagatram Dhruv was aged about 5-6 years on the date of the accident. The compensation of Rs.62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the conteKt of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Syed Ibrahim and others (supra), we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. • i' 6. As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge nimmi