A.F.^ c' 3 c ^•s.— HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH Coram HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR S1NHA, J. M.A. No. 913 of 2004 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Ravindranath Tamrakar, S/o Dwarika Prasad Tamrakar, Aged about - 45 years, Hatribazar, Dhamdha, Present Address - Daganiya, Raipur, District-Raipur (Chhattlsgarh) VERSUS Amarsingh Dhruv, S/o Ganpat Dhruv, R/o. Dr. Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Thana Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.) (Oriver of Truck Np.MP- 26D/1980), Smt: Deepa Pratiwani, W/o Narendra Pratiwarni, R/o. Idgahbhata, Lakhenagar, Raipur, Djstrict Raipur (C.G.). fTruck Owner-MP-260/1980) Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltdl;Raipur,Amar Complex, Jeevan Beema Marg, Raipur, Tah. And District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh). (Insurer of Truck -- MP-26D/1980) APPEAL U/S 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT Present: Shri N.K. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant. ORDER (6th January, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ.: c' \/ •^ c V.-/ Shri N.K. Chatterjee, learned counset for the appellant is heard on M.(C.)P. No.1281 of 2004, a petition of condonation of the delay in filing the appeal 2. On due consideration, M.(C.)P. No.1281 of 2004 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Shri N.K. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 4. Appellant Rabindranath Tamrakar is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Seventh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 29.03.2004, passed in Claim Case No.74/2002. 5. As against the compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- claimed by the appellanVdaimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of his son Umang, aged about 8 years in the motor accident on22.10.2000, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.64,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the dat^pf actual payment. 6. Shri N.K. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.64,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low as deceased child Umang would have provided support to the appellant in his old age. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim and Others, reported in 2007(4)T.A.C. 38S (SC), while laying the guidelines for assessment of the r" • .\^^. c \ x: c ^^'- compensation tn the case involving death of a child observed in para 9 as under: " In case of young childrenof 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 theiracademic pursuits, achievements in carrier and thereafter advancement in iife are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment of estimated basis not the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation." 8. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim (supra), the Apex Court reduced the amount of compensation from Rs.1,52,000/- to Rs.51,500/- (awarded by the Tribunal) for the deafh of a child aged about 7 years. 9. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and in view of above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim (supra), we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. subbu 10. The appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- s"'"IKun,arSinha Judge ^ L c ^ ^