@ { J i l £3“7. FELLé‘EaNTE ’i . CUMMANTS §"§E£3§‘E ¢£3URT @F QHE 'E?§S@£§F{H é-‘i? BiLikSPQR QEWSIGN BENSH $§3R£M é—EQNggLE $HR! RUMEE‘J @L‘Ffég, CJ‘ EON’BLE $HR§ SijNiL KUMAR $ENH§i5 $. MA. No.53é QF 2w§ Smt. Janki Baé, agea‘ about 32 yeam, Wlo Duip Pate!‘ pmfession housewife, 2. ’ D§iip Pate}, aged about 38 years, S/o Namtram. They beih are Ric Mahamaya Dha’rmkanta, P3. MQWA P633}. Mama CeEany, Tamil & D§sErict — Raipur (CG) 1. Bukaiu, aged abom ’32 years, Sfo Mukuiram Sam, 'pro‘fession -= scheoi— bus—drivea RJe Loharabhatha, FIS, Mandifhasaud, Tahsi! & diwr Raigur r (9G3 A? Ganga Accadami Vidyaiaya, Through .the Managen At Ganga Accadami Schooi Away from Mandhar, Kharox’a Raad, Ra§pur, Tahsi! & Disti. - Ra§pur C.G.) 3. The Gi‘ientai insurance Comp. Ltd, Thraugh Divisianai Manager, Division office, Kacfnahari Chcwk, Madman ManziL Raigwr (C.G.) .». E1.’EE$£ELL&E€E@%JS APE3E‘41EL UNDER $E$T§0N $1153 QF TE"§E W®T§R ¥EH§CLE ACTq i§3§ Present: m3 Somaahukta Sarkar, Eeamed counse! fer thg apgeilants wsa R E2 E R {mm February, 2mm The fauowing order c? the Cour? was passed by Ragga; (Emma, $.vE. Learned counsel fer ihe appeilants is heard on admisséan. 1T K3 @ 2) we agpe!!ants, unfortunate. parents 0f deceased chad _ myg a Dlgambag . are seakeng . enhancement of the 5ampensat§an i . éwarded by 14th Additicmal Motor Acckient Ciaims. Tribunai FTC), R§E§2m (for shor’i ‘é‘he Tribunai’) wide award daied 9.01 .2005 passed m Claim Cage No.1Q/2004 ) As against the commensatwn of R° 40 GG DOD!— dawned by ih§ claimants fw the dea‘h of thear minor son Dkgambar aged emu? 5 yearsi the Tribuna! awardaa A total sompenSation 0f Rs.“/:5,GGQ%— aiang with interest @ 6% pey annam from the date of :fiiing of the cEaim petition tiil the date of acme! paymené. 4) Learned counsel fer the appeiiants vehementiy argued that the campeneatien of Rs.75,000/— awarded by the Tribema! is tee Jaw as deceased amid Digambar wae the omy son 0f the Eppetlen‘ts and he wewé have exEended suppert to the appettants tin their old age 35) it is not in dispute that deceased chiid Digambat an the date cf the accident was aged about 5 years. The compensation of Rs: 75 O0D/- awarded by the Thbunai when examined m the context of dictum 0* the Apex gourt 1n the case of 0nentat § Ensutance So, Ltd. tis Syed tbrahxm and ethearst reported m 1 2m)? (4) TAG 3S5 ($3), we are satisfied that the compensation of Rsjsooof- awardee by the Tribunal ss rather on the higher side as the Apex Coutt found compensation of Rs.51 500/» to be i just and propet compensation in the case of Orientai insumnce (it), Ltd, (supra) where the age ofthe ohiid was about 7 years. (%”1“ 6) ‘ We, therefore, d9 not find any scape for enhancement of ihe‘compensation awarded by the Tribunai. ?‘) The appeal, therefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and is )u—v heyJeby dismissed summarily. , 5d!- m : E 7r, Sd/-~'} Chief Justicer ; ‘ 2 Iimmn v .7 . ; k?ay x k ‘ ‘ " '7 \ sunil Kumar Sinha Judge WK