HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HONgBLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON’BLE SHRE $UNIL KUMAR SINHA, J.‘ Misc. Appeal No.124 of 2002 Memorandum of Appeal under Section 173 of Mater Vehicle Act 1988 Appellants 1 Shri Ramesh Kumar Shedpure S/o Shri Claimants Sheo Narayan Shedpure, age about 38 years 2 Smt Maya Shedpure W/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Shedpure, Age abeut 37’ .ears Both Residents of HIG ~ 1/84, Sector 1 Pt Deendayal Upadyaya Nagar. PO Ravishankar University PO Raipur 49261G VERSUS Respondents Shaikh Khalil, Sic Shaikh Mazid Maniyar Mohalla Hariom Transport Edlabad Distt Jalgaon (MS) Driver of Truck No.MH-28-B-5808 2 Oriental insurance Co. Ltd, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Manchha Bhavan, Garud Plot. Near Municipai Hospital Bhusaval' (MS) 425301 insurer of Truck No.MH-28-B-5808 3 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, MCBO - 14 Priyadarshini, RCF Complex, Eastern Express Highway Chembur, Mumbai400022 insurer of Maruti Car NoMP-OQ—N-3965 4 Smt Saraswati Jaiswal, HIG 2/4, Borsi, Durg(CG) Owner of above Maruti Car payment. 3) Shri SS Rajput and Shri Anant Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.60,000/- only, as the appellants’ son Shishir would have extended great support to the appellants in their old age. 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 Present : Shri S.S. Rajputand ShriAnantBajpal, counsellorthe appellants. counsel Shrl Malay for respondent Kumar Bhadurl No.4 and Shgl P.K. Tulsyan, ORDER (1st“ April, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident g Claim Tribunal, Raipur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 20.1 1 .2001, passed in Claim Case No.21/2001. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.6,65,000/- claimed by the appellants / claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased child Shishir, aged about four years, by filing a claim petition under, Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 11.12.1999, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual —: :r years in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Syed Ibrahim and others reported in 2007 (4) T.A.c. 385 (S.C.) observed in paras9& 10: “9. This Court in Lata Wadhwa while computing compensation made distinction between the deceased children failing within the age group of 5 to 1D years and age group of 10 to 15 years. 10. in cases of young chiidren 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 ,iife 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 R551 ,SOOI- 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’ son Shishir was aged about four years only on the date of the accident. The compensation of Rs.60,000l— 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 Ibrahim and others (supra), we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation, and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 6) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7) The appealu filed by the appellantslclaimants for V ‘enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be k dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 8) No order as to costs. /. 2W W“ Sdl_ il‘ it Sd/‘ i r r Sunil Kumar Sinha \\ CHIEF JUSTICE ’ ‘ Judge \ subbu \‘x.