Jé‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIViSiON BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON’BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. MA No.14“ of 2005 Appellants Chandrabhanu Patel, S/o Setram Patel Claimants Aged about 34 years, Occupation — Former and Tailor R/o Village — Phoolbandhla, Tahsll — Kharsla, District — Raigarh (CG) 2 Smt Mohanmati W/o Chandrabhanu Patel, Age — 29 years, Occupation - House Wife and Labour, R/o Village — Phoolbandhla, Tahsil —- Kharsia, District - Raigarh (CG) VERSUS Respondents Johnson, S/o Tulsi Markam, Aged Non-Applicants about 27 years, Occupation - Driver, Rio Nalnpur, District — Mandala, at presently R/o M/s Prasad & Company, Tulsl Bhawan, Hamalpara, Kharsla, District — Raigarh (CG) Vehicle Owner 2 M/s Prasad & Company, Tulsi Bhawan, Hamalpara, Kharsia, District - Raigarh (CG) 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager, United India insurance Co. Ltd, In front of Gopl Talkies, Tahsil & District — Ralgarh (CG) Memorandum of Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 for enhancement of award. Present : Shri Basant Dewangan, counselforthe appellants. ORDER . (13m April, 2010) The following order of the Court v was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The appeHants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Motor Accident Claim Tribunai, Raigarh (for short, ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 29.09.2005, passed in Ciaim Case No.26/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- claimed by the appeilants / ciaimants, unfortunate parents of deceased girl Pooja, aged about five years by tiling a claim petition under Section 166 of . the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on ‘ 16.06.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.52,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.52,000l— only. 4) 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. V Syed lbrahim and others reported in 2007 (4) T.A.C. 385 (S.C.) observed in parasQ&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. KW 10. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties about, 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 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. V. Syed Ibrahim and others (supra), held that the compensation of Rs.51 ,5OOI- was just and proper compensation for the death of a child aged about seven years. 5) Now, reverting to the present case, admittedly, the appellants’ daughter was aged about five years only on the date of the accident. The compensation of Rs.52,000/— awarded by the ‘Tribunal when examined in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Syed lbrahim and others (supra), we are satisfied, is ust and j proper compensation, and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. ‘ / / WW- ‘ . 6) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7) The appeal, filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. f l 8) No order as to costs. 5d,_ ‘7 v Sd/— CHIEF JUSTICE l Prashant Kumar Mishra padma r ‘ ’ i ‘ ~ l Judge