OF AT M: C.J. & SHRS J tCI No. 983 of INT'C 1. Parrnanand Satnami, 28 S/o Satnami, Agricuiturist. 2. Demin Bai, about 26 VV/o Parmanand Satnaml. Both.R/o Vii!age PoEice Station & Tahsli Durg (C.G.) 1 Yadav, S/o Yadav, (Driver) R/o Tllkeda, Pollce Uros., District Korba (C.G.) 2 EWs R.K. Transport S. instruction, (Truck Ovvner), K.K. Road, Mauhadapara, Ralpur, Tahsl! & Dlstrict Ralpur (C.G.) 3 Branch IVlanager, National insurance Company Ltd., 13, Bhanu Compisx, Road; Korba, TahsiE & (C.G.) 173 of : . Shri B.D. counse! forthe »rd The foilowing. order of .the Court by C.J. Shri B.D. Badgaiyan, iearned counsel for the appeiiants is on iA ?\io.1/2010, an appiicatlon for condonation ofthe delay in fiiing the 2) On due conslderation of the submissions of counsei for the and the grounds taken in the appilcation, we are that the have in showing sufficient for the In fiilng the 3) iA No.1/2010, therefore, is aiiowed and the of 15 in fiiing the is hereby condoned. 4) Shri B.D. Badgalyan, counsel for the Is on admlssion. 5) The appsiiants, unfortunate parents of glrl Gayatri lai; about 7 years, are seeklng enhancement of the compensation awarded by i:he Addltional Moio'c Accident Ciairns Tribunai, Bemetara, District Durg (for short, ithe Tribunal') vlde 31.03.2010, in Ciaim No.91 /2009. 6) As the cornpensation of Rs.9,25,000/- ciaimed by the / cialmants, by 'niing a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for the of their Gayatri Bai, about 7 years in the motor on 20.09.2009, the Tribunai a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compen.sation with @ 6% per annum from the of fiiing of the claim fili the of payment. 7} Shri B.D. for the vehementiy that the compensation ot' Rs.80,000/- by the TribunaE Is too Sovi/.and to be enhanced. 8) The appeitants' daughter Gayatri Bai was aged about 7 and was a of 2nd on the of the accsdent. 9) The Apex Court whiie considering as to what would be the just and proper compensation for the ot' a chiid about 7 in the case of Co« V. and in 2 9 & 10 : T.A.C. 385 observed in "9. This Court in Wadhwa whiie computjng compensatlon distinctlon the chlldren faillng withln the age group of 5 to 10 an.d sge group of 1 O to 15 years. 10. In of young children of tenaer In vlew of uncertaintles about, neither their income at the time of nor the prospects of the'future in their income nor chances • of advancement of their career are of determination on The is th.at at such an eariy the In to their pursuits, achievements in and thereafter advancement in !ife are so many that nothing can be wlth certajnty. Therefore, is the income of the chiid of on nor is the financiai by the of mathematicai computation/' The Apex' Gourt In the of Co. Ltd, V. (supra), heid that'the compensation of R.s.80,000/'- just and proper compensation for the of a child about seven years. i\\ 4 • 10) Now revenng to the the CGrnpensation of Rs.80,000/- by the Tribunaj when examined in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the of Co. Ltd. V. and (supra), we are not cal! for any enhancement in this 11) The appeal, fiied by the appeilants./'ciajmants for enhance-ment of the compensation, therefore, is iiable to be and is hereby summariiy. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- A Sunil Kumar Sinha /I Judge SUbbU