€ HIGH-SOURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BILASPUR DIViSION BENCH I'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHR! RA?^GNATH CHANDRAKAR,J i.A.tClNo. 491 of 2010 /^ t'^Vfw^^\f^,tiii^ </idiU 1. Ashok Kumar Patel S/o Gangadhar . Patel, aged about 32 years, Occupation - Agriculture, Caste - Aghariya 2. Smt toushiiva Bai Patel, W/o Ashok Kusmr Pstc!, sgcd sbout 30 y'csrs, :ion - Housewife Non-CiuimanSs Both R/o Villaae Turidih, Post Offlce - Jhalap, Poilce Station - Pithora, DisSrict - Mahasamund (CG) 1. Jakir Miyan, S/o Chunnu Miyan, aged about 57 years, Caste —hiiusaimsn, Occupation - Driver, R/o Moudhapara, Raipur, District - Raipur (CG) (Driver of vehlcle Minibus registration No.CG.04'E/0610) bearin.a 2 Gendram Nirmaikar, S/o (Not mentioned) sged about 48 years, R/o ViSlage Nawaaaon, Poiice Station Mandirhasaud, District - Raipur (CG) (Registered Owner of vehicle Minibus bearing registration No.CG.04/E/0610) 3. The Reiiance General Insurance Companv Limited, Dhirubhai Ambani Group, Shrough Branch Manager, Branch Office, Ravi Bhawan, 4m Floor, Near Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil & District - Raipur (CG) (Insurer of vehicie Minibus registration No.CG.04/E/0610) bearing ^^^^^^S^^^S^^^^^^&Ki^SSi^^SiS^^^^^S^^^^^^^ Memorandum of Appeal u/s173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, counsel rorihe appeilants. ORDER (30mApril,2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, tearned counsel for the appellants is heard on I.A. No.01/2010, an application for condonation ofthe delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submisslons of learned counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufflcient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A. No.01/ 2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay in fiiing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Dharmesh Shriyastava, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 1.04.2009, passed in Ciaim Case No.190/2008. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- claimed by the appeliants / claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased boy Nikhil Kumar Patel, aged about four years by filing a claim petition under ,^f .-,^, I 1 "^®"""JJ l^... 'l'€/ "'<K3ESS^y'' ©- Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 27.06.2008, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.52,000/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filina of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counse! for the appellants vehementty araued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.52,000/- only, though the appeilants' son deceased Nikhil Kumar Patel wouid have extended great support to the parents in their old age. 8) The Apex Court whtle 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 Orientai tnsurance Co. Ltd. V. Syed l&rahim and others reported in 2007 (4) T.A.C. 385 (S.C.) observed in paras 9 & "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. in cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertaintles about, neither their income at the Ume of death nor the prospects of the future increase in thelr income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an eariy age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter 1 L<^ Jsi 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 fihancial 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), heid that the compensatlon of Rs.51,500/- was just and proper compensation for the death of a child aged about seven years. 9) Now reverting to the present case, admittediy, the appellants' son deceased Nikhil Kumar Patei was aged about four years on the date of the accident. The compensation of Rs. 52.000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examlned in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Orienta! Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Syed Ibrahim and others (supra), we are satisfied, Is just and proper compensation and does not cail for any enhancement in this appeal. 10) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11) The appeal fiied by the appeilants/claimants for enhancement of the compensatjon, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed summarilv. Sd/- Chief Justice paama Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge r