HIGH COEHIT QF CHEIATE‘ESGARH AT BELAS§UR MISC. APPEAL No, 875/2002 Rohit Kumar S/o Mnharamal $0nkar aged 35 yearS Smt. Kala Bai W/Q Rehit Kumrar, aged 33 yrs. Both a1‘e resident of Bargudi Para, Near Tempie, Tah 85 P3. Arang, Distt. Raipur Versus Narayan S/o Prasad Gaur, aged Rio ViEl Paikamal, RS. Faikamal, Distt. Bargarh (Orrisa) Suresh Kumar agawa}, S/o SB. AgrawaL R/Q. WE. Paikamal, PS Paikamal, Distt.‘ Bargarh (OHiSa) ’The Oriental insurance Co. Ltd 90 through the Divisional Manager, Divisional Oftice, Je€va11 Bsema Marg, Pandai‘i, Tah and 'Distt. Raipur {CG) sm— Hon. Shri NK. Agaxwai, J. PRESENT :- Shri SC. Varma with Shri Aditya Khare, Adv‘ for the appeHant. Per N.K. Agarwal, J 1.‘ Heard on admiseion. .‘ This is ciaimants’ ORAL ORDER (22—3—2010) appeal seeking enhancement compensation in the award dated 19-7—2002 passed in Claim r Case No. 31/ 2002' by IVth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur. Brief facts of the case 4. On 4—1-2001, one Manish Kumar i.e. son of the appeliants aged about 6 years met With an accident With truck bearing registration No. OR- 17—6221 and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. The appeliants have preferred Claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 (brieily, ‘the Act’) and have claimed Rs. 7,50,000/- as compensation against the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle for the death of the deceased. of 03‘ are as under:- 3%.?PELLJM‘ET l CLAIM&NT 2 RESPONDENT 1 . 32‘ years NON-£??LICANT 5 7 L€arnec1 Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidance 16d, material p1~aced and submissioxl made, 116161 ths drivar o§ the vehicls respensible for m6 said accident; awardsd Rs. 80,000/— as compensation to the appellantsi’claimants aloog Wi‘ih interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application til} its recovery. 6. Learned counsel for the appellaots would submit that the amount awarded is shockingly on lower side and deserves to be suitably enhanced. 7. I have heard 1earned counsel for the appellants, perused the impugned award and also the record of the Tribunal. 8. Indisputably, the deceased was aged about 6 years at the tihle of accident. The Supreme Court in the case of Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. —v- $yed Ibrahim and others reported in (2007) 11 SCC‘512, which was a case of death of child of 7 years, afiiimed the award of the Tribunal by which Rs. 51,500/- was awarded as compensation and observed in para 7 as under:- “7. There are some aspects of human life which are capable of monetary measurement, but the totality of human life is like the beauty of sunrise or the splendour of the stars, beyond the reach of monetary tape measure, The determination of damages for loss of human life is an extremely difj§bult task and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a child and/or a non- eaming person. Theft/time of a child is uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn The question of assessment of compensation, therefore, becomes sti]?er. We figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork. In cases, where parents are the claimants, relevant factor would'be age ofparents,” 9. 1n View of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred Case, I do not find any scope for enhancement of the amount of compensation in the impugned award. 10. For the foregoing, the appeal being devoid of substances deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. l 1. NO order as to costs. Sd/- N. K. AganNalf Judge U1 i