HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA,C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 804 of 2004 APPELLANT CLAIMANT (1) (2) (3) RESPONDENT (1) NONAPP1-ICANTS (2) (3) Bhupendra Naik, S/o Dewcharan Lal Verma, Aged about 65 years, Narendra Kumar Verma, S/o Dewcharan Lal Verma, Aged about- 54years, Shailendra Kumar Verma, S/o Dewcharan Lal Verma, aged about 48 years, All resident of village Devniketan, Ramkund Para, Chiruldih Ward, In front of = Maharastra Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) . Versus Manoj Bhai Drona, S/o Nathalala Bhai, Occupation - Truck Driver, R/o Village Mathapar, Manharpur, Jamnagar Road, Rajkot (Gujrat). Dilip Mansur Bhai Dhangar, Address 5 Mundabadi, Rajkot (Gujrat) Vehicle Tanker No.GTF 3554, Registered The United India Insurance Company Lirriited, Branch Rajkot, Through : Madina Building Kachahari Chowk, Raipur, C.G. MISCELLANEOUS APPEALUNDERSECTION 173 OF THE IVIOTORVEHICLESACT, 1988 •t'*. Present: Shri AS Singraul, learned counsel for the appellants. ^ ORDER (19thNovember,2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J._ lllfM: Shri AS Singraul, counsel for the appetlants is heard on MCP No.1452/2004, a petition forcondonation of delay in filing theappeal. 2) On due consjderation, we are satisfied that the appeliants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, 3) MCP No.1452/2004, therefore, is atlowed andthe delay of 24 days in flling the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the appeilants is heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the First Additionat Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.01.2004 passed in Claim Case No.172/2002. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.5,30,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants for the death of Ayush Kumar Verma, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.52,000/- as compensation to the daimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of flling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri AS Singraul, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.52,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal is too low as deceased Ayush Kumar Verma would have provided support to the appellants/claimants, who are his uncles in their old age. 8) The Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Syed Ibrahim and others reported in 2007 (4) TAC 385 (SC), while assessing just and proper E@ :i:l; compensation in the said case for the death of a child aged about 7 years observed in paras 8 and 9: "8. This Court in Lata Wadhwa's (supra) while computing compensation made distinction between deceased children falling within the age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 years. 9. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of the 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 eariy 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 the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment of estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation." 9) Deceased chitd Ayush Kumar was aged about 8 years on the date of the accident. The claimants are his uncles aged about 65 years, 54 years and. 48 years. Deceased Ayush Kumar was a student of 5 standard at the relevant time. 10) The compensation of Rs.52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of above m^ntioned dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Ibrahim (supra); and the above mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfled that the compensation. awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper comDeasation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. :---I 11) We, therefore, do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is tiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. padma Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge