HEGH COURT OF CHHA'E‘TISGARH AT B§LASPUR WHSC. APPEAL N0. 396 OF 2003 APPELLANTS 1. PadamE Sukhdev, S/o fate Mangtu, 26 iciaimariw} years, 2. Smt. Podaye, W/o Padami Sukhdev, 30 years, 3. Ku. Kamii. D/o Padami Sukhdev‘ 1 “/a' years, Appeilant No.3, through Father & naturai guardian, appeHant N91 Ail residents 0f Koiolipara, Village Bangbon RS. Barsoor, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Kaiiaah Tiwari @ Raju. S/o Shiv Prasad Tiwas’i, resident of Viiiage Taragaon, P5. Lohandiguda, DEstt. Bastar (C.G.) Laxmi Niwasi Pandey, S/o Laxman Pandey, resident of Vinage Mardoom, P.S. Mardoom, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 3. The Oriental insurance Co. Ltd.. Sadar Bazar Road, Jagdauaur, Distt. B‘astar (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHIOLE ACT 1988. (Sinqie Bench: Hon‘bke Mr. N.K. Aqarwal, J.) Present :Shri Prafuii Bharat, counsel for the appellants. Shrl RP. Slngh, counsel for respondent NQZ. Shrl Sudhlr Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. eRAL ORDER (Passed on 23"“ day of March, 201 0) This ls claimants‘ appeal for enhancement of the compensation n the award dated 22-07-2003 passed by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; (F.T.C.), Bastar Jagdalpur (for short ‘the Tribunal‘) in Claim Case No.166/2002. 2. Facts briefiy stated are as under: i On 05-O4~2002 Kamlu, (since deceased) aged about 6 years met with an accident with Bus bearing registration No. MP. 25/J-032? and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. 3. The claimants unfortunate parents and sister of the deceased Fiied an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act (for ehort ‘the Act’) claiming Rs.2,00,000/~ as compensation for the death ‘of the deceased in the said accident. 4. The learned Tribunai on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material piaced and submissions made, held respondent No.1 i.e. driver of the offending Vehicle responsible for the said accident; looking to the age of the deceased as six years at the time of accident, awarded Rs.62,000/— as compensation in all to the appeilants/claimants for the death of the deceased along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application tiil its recovery. 5. Learned counsel for the appelianis/claimants wouid submit that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is shockingly on lower side and deserves to be suitably enhanced. 6‘ On the other hand, learned co‘unsei for the respondents supported the award impugned and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonabie and the same deserves to be upheid. 7. l have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and the award impugned. 8. The Supreme Court has occasion to deal with‘such cases in which the boy of 7 years was the victim of the accident, in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Syed Ibrahim and Others; reported in 2007 (11) SCC 512. In that case, Hon’bie the Supreme Court has affirmed the award of Rs.51,500/— passed by the Tribunal observing in para 10 of its judgment as under: “1 O. In cases of ybung children of tender age, in view of the 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 eariy age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be i a, assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither is the income of the deceased chiid capable of assessment on estimated basis not is the Fmanciak loss suffered by the parents capabie of mathematical computation." 9. tn view of the fact that the deceased was of the age of about 6 years at the time of accident and by placing reiiance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the above referred case, in the co‘nsidered opinion of this Court, the amount awarded by the teamed Tribunat is just and reasonable and does not can for any interference of‘this Court. u u 10. Accordingly, the appeai filed by the appeliants being devoid of merit is tiabie to be and is hereby dismissed. o 11. No order as‘to costs. Sdlv ‘l\ NI K Agama‘ Judge ' Kvr