^ ApDQJiants Claimants. HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRS RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appea! No. 329 of 2006. 1. Punit Ram Yadav, S/o Bahur Singh Yadav, aged about 30 years, r/o Doomardihkala, Thana - Ghumka, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 2. Purnima Yadav, W/o Punit Ram Yadav, aged about 28 years, r/o Doomardihkala, Thana - Ghumka, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Respondents 2 3. VERSUS Parmeshwar S/o Nakul Ram Verma, aged about 28 years, r/o Village Basula, Thana- Ghumka, Distt. Rajnandgaon Sunii Agrawal, S/o Shivkumar Agrawal, r/o Bharat Mata Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Branch Manager, The Oriental insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, (C.G.). IVIisc. Appeal under Sectlon 173 of IVSotor VehicSes Act. Present: Shri Yogendra Pandey, counsel for the appellants. Shri Basant Dewangan, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Dilip Dubey, counsel on behaif of Mrs.Chitra Shrivastava, counsef for respondent No.3. ORDER (23rd July, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. •• Learned counsel for the parties are heard on M.C.P.No.398/2006, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the petition, we are satisfied that the appetlants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the deiay in filing the appeal. 3) M.C.P.No.398/2006, therefore, is aliowed and the delay in fiiing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 5) The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 16.03.2005, passed in Claim Case No.134/2004. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- ciaimed by the appeliants/ claimants, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the death oftheir son Neelkanth @ Sonu, aged about six years in the motor accident on 08.06.2004, the Tribunaiawarded a total sum of Rs.52,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of flling of the ciaim petition tili the date of actua! payment. 7) Shri Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appeliants vehemently argued that the Tribuna! has erred in awarding iow compensation of Rs.52,000/- only as the appeliants' son Neelkanth @ Sonu would have extended great support in their old age. / / ./' ^ /'^ 8) The Apex Courtwhile considering as to what would be the amount of just and proper compensation for the death of a child aged about 7 years in the case of Orientai Ensurance Co. Ltd. Vs Syed Ibrahim and others, reported in 2007 (4) TAC 385 (SC), observed in paras 9 & 10 : "9. This Court in Lata Wadhwa while computing compensation made distinction between the deceased chiidren 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 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 earty 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 wlth 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 Snsurance Co. Ltd. Vs Syed Jbrahim and others (supra), heid that the compensation 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 appeiiants' son Neelkanth @ Sonu was aged about six years on the date of the accident. The compensation of Rs.52,000/- awarded by the Tribuna! when examined in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra), we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation and does not cal! for any enhancement in this appeai. 10) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 11) The appeai, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismlssed. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu