HEGH CQURT OF CHHA’E’WSGARH A? EILASPUR QWISEON BEN£H €§Rg£MI HQNEBLE $HRE $L§NEL KUMIXR SEN§-§A, HON’BLE SHR! R.L. JHANWARg JJ. Nam. Appeai No. 325 of 2mm ilnyeEianEs 1 Smt Yogeshw‘ari Sahu, aged about 2i Ciaima‘nts years, W/‘o Kishare Kumar Sahu, Profession * hsusewife Kishore Kumar Sahu, aged about 25 years, SIG Ramkal Sahu Both are Rio Kishore Hotei, Sarora, PO Sarora, PS Ur!a,. Raipur, Dist Raipur, CG VER$US Ramchandra, aged about 27 years, 8/0 Umrao Gond, Profession u truck driver, Rio Through Shekh Ajaj, GE Road. Tatibandh, Raipurg Dist Raipur, (CG) Shekh Ajaj, S/o Shekh lbrahim, Profession —n truck owner, GE Road, Tatibandh, Raipur (CG) The Orienrai insurance Company Ltd, Through the Divisioriai Manager, Division Office, Kaohahari Chowk, Jaiiroad, Raipur (CG) Rasoandants Misc. Amoeai under SecEion 1'73 of the Motor ijehicies Act Preseni : Ms Somshukia Sarkar, ieamed counsei for the appeiiants. Shri Shaiiendra Shanna, iearned oounsei for resnondent No.3/Orientai insurance Company Limited. oRoER {rah Aagaar, aooa} The following order of the Court was passed by / am? Kumar Sinha, J. \\ K Appeiiants/claimants are the parents of deceased Ku.Loveli Sahu, a fema!e child aged about 2 1/2 years, who/died in the mo‘ior accident on 20.03.2005 when she was dashed by the offending vehicie truck, bearing‘registraiion Ne.CG-O4 ZC 5348, on account of the rash and negiigentl driving of the dhver of ihe said truck. 2} The ciaimants claimed Rs.20,00,DOO/- as compensation by filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act; i988 for the death of their daughter Kum Loveii Sahu in the said motor accident 3) Reepondents No.1 &-2 Le. driver and owner of the offending vehicie truck remained ex pane, whereas, respondent No.3 insurance Company contested the claim by filing their” written statements, in which they submitted that the offending vehicle truck was being piied in breach of the policy conditions, as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving license on the date of the accident 4) The claimants examined Yogeshwari 8ahu (AW/1) and Niranjan Singh Sahu (AW/2) in support of their oiaim petition, whereas the respondents did not examine any witness in rebuttalt 5) The Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident- occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle truck and the respondents were jointiy and severaiiy liabie to pay the amount of compensation to the ciaimants. The Tribunai awarded Rs.?5,006/- towards toss of / expectancy ot‘iite; Rs.20,000/- towards iove and affection and 11 ® ‘\, 1 Rs.5,000/— for funeral expen5es. The Tribunal; thus, awarded a iota! sum of Rs.1,00,000/— as compensation to the appellants / claimante for €he death of their daughter KumLeveH Sahu in the motor accideni‘ The Tribunal also awarded interesi @ 6% per annum frem the date of filing pf the claim petition, till its reallzatien. 6) Ms Somshukia Sarkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellantsf claimants argued that the Tribunal hae erred in law, in awarding low compensation t0 the appellants/claimants for the death of their minor daughter Kum.L0veli Sahu in the motor accident. 7) On the other hand Shri Shallendra Sharma, learned couneel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 referring to the deoieion of the Apex Court rendered in the matter of Oriental insurance Co: Ltd, Vs Syed lbrahlm and othera, reported in 2%? (4t “EC-335 ($Ci, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants and submitted that a high amount of compensation has already been awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants. 8) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused records of the claim case. ln the matter of Qrlental insurance Co! Ltd, Vs Syed Ibrahim (supra) the Apex Court observed vide para No.40 as under : “16. in cases of young children of tender age, in View of uncertainties abound, neither their income at thetime of deathnor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of ‘\ . advancement of their camer are capabie 0f proper determination on estimated baeie. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncei'tainties in regard to theit 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 chiid capabie of assessment on estimated basis ncr is the financial loss suffered by the parents capable of mathematical computatien.” 9) in the said case the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5t ,5001- for the death of a child aged about 7 years. The aforesaid amount was enhanced by the High Ccurt to Rs.1,52,000/-. Thereafter, the Apex Court set aside the order passed by the High Court regarding enhancement of the amount of compensation, and maintained the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. 10) The compensation of Rs.1,00,00Df— awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Crientat insurance Co. Ltd, (supra), we are satisfied, does not cali for any enhancement in this appeal. 1’1) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. t2) The appeai has L‘no merit. The same is iiabie to toe dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. padma 13) A No order as to costs. . 5d]- Sdl- R.L. Jhanwar Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Judge,