HIGH GOURT OF GHHATTISGARM AT BIU^PUR DtVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEV©UPTA,G.J.& HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHAMCmAIO^R, J, Appellants Claimants Misc. Aopeal (C) No. 418 of 20®6 1. Tutehi Ram, S/o Bladram Satfiami, Aged about 48 years 2. Smt Kamla. W/o Shri Tutehi Rgwn, aged about 42 years Both appellants No.1 & 2 residents of Pehareed PS Matkhsrowd Tahsit & District ,Janjgir ^ Champa (Chhattisgarh) VgRSUS Resoondents (Owner) (Driver) (InsurerO Rampukar stragh S/o Devnandan Singh Age- Unknown, Resictent of Badan Bus Serivce® Village - Kodatarai, Pdice Statton - Pushor, Tehsil & Dfetrtet Raigarti (Chha^^arh) Gopal Singh Mittal, S/o Untaiawn, Age ynknown, R/o PraiNpganj Saranggarh Police Statton ° - Saranggarh, Tehasil & Distrfct - Saranggarh(Chhattisgarh) The Orierrtal tnsuranee Company Umited, Branch - Raigarh (Chhattjs^irh) Through Divistonal Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company-Umited, Firet Floor, Rama Trade Center, Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 @F THE MOTWl VEHICLES ACT. 1988. ^^ INKNK N»^ Present Shri AL Singraul, covnsel for the appellants. Shri Roop Naik, counsel for responctents No.1 and 2. Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsej for responderrt No.3. ORDER (03rd Marcli. 2011) The following order of the Court was pe®sed by Rajeev Gupta,C.J. This is clsrimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Acoident Claims Tribunal, Sakti (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 31.08.2006, passed in Claim Case No. 17/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.35,25,000/- daimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of cteceased Hemant Kumar, by filinga claim petition under Sectton 166 of the Motor Vehfoles Act, for his death in the motor accicterrt on 06.03.2005. the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.97,000/- as compensation along with irrterest @ 6% per annum from ttie daAe of filjng ofthe claim petition UH the date ofactuart paymerrt. 3) Shri AL Singraul, learned counsel for ttie appetlants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred tn awardhig tow compensalion of Rs.97,000/- only though the app^lants' son deceased Hemant Kumar was a britljant ^udent and had a br^ht future. ^ ^' ^.. ttir^ 4) Shri Abhishek Sinha. leamed counsel for r^pondetit No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Umited on the other hand supported the award and contended that as deceased Hemant Kumar was not having any independent income of hls wwn, the compensation of Rs.97,000/- awarded by the Tribural is just and proper compensation in the facts and circum^ances of the present case. 5) Shri Roop Naik, leamed counsel for respondente No.1 and 2 the owner and driver ofthe offending vehtele Bus ateo supported the award. 6) Appellants' son Hemant Kumar was shownto be 11 years of age in hfs postmortem report. Thotj^h in his mark-sheet whtoh was produced by the daimants before the Tribunal Ws date ©f birth was shcwn to be 13.05.1992 whieh woutd make the age of the deceased on the date of the accident as 13 years. At the time of accident he was a stydent of 7th standard. The marte obtajned by him in 6mstandard as sh<wn 'm his roark sheet P/7 ctoes not at all establish thsrt he was TOeritorious student, as he faited in Mathematics and Hindi tn the sakt exanninatton. 7) The Apex Court while considering as to what would be the just and proper compensation for the d^rth of 8 ohNd aged about 7 years in the case of Oriental Insurance Co«Ud. V» Qyed Ibrahlm and others, reported In 20&7 (4) TAC-3^ (SG) observed in paras 9 & 10: aie 9M '^uspiooB aift p aiep ayi uo &i8aA ei,-K, inoqe pa6e 88M J8Uia>| IU8UI8H UOS ,8lU8||9ddB VBMl PG^ ayi pue (Bjdns) **pn *oo aouBjnsui i^uapo P aseo aift u( ijnoo xadv ayi p uin»a(ppauo|N8ui-9A@qB 941 p poiuoo ©41ui paujijuexa uayM imjnqjJi atft Aq paptfBme -KX)0'i6"^ P uoj^esuadijuoo aiii (9 'sieaA U9A98 yioqe pa6e pisyo B p (Iteep aiftjoi uotiBsuadttioo jadoid pue isnf SBAA -/QOS' t.S'sy P uoip8uediu<K) sq^ ley} p|94 (ejdns) sj»i|ioPUB uiji|Bic|| paAg SA <pn'oo aauB.insui |®|uapoAO asoo 841 ui ijnoo xady aMl «'UOjtBinduUOO|BOReU19l|lBliU P 8jcpdBQ s^uajed 941 Aq pajejjns sso| leiouBuy sy^ 8| jou s(sec| psiBUijisa uo tuaiussasse p eiqedBO p|ii<o psseaoap aia jo emosHij 94) si jay^iey '810^941 •A»u(etieoaiqeuoseaj qum psujnsse aq ueo fiuiqiou pt^ AUBUI 08 9JB aij| Uj ^uaiuaouBApB jevB^QMl pue jaajeo ui siyauieAQjMoe 'sunsind oiujapeaB Jiayi ©1pje^A u| ssiyjiei.iQoun 8i<i 'sBe Apea ue t|ons )e VBtR 8{ U08B9J 9M1 "S|8Bq pa|GUIftS8 UO UO!)BUtUU9pp jsdoiid jo aiqedeo &JB jaejeo jjaitt p luaiusouBApe jo saouBtp jou auuoouj Jiaii^ ut Qseaiouj ajdin^ 8t<t p spadsojd ei^jou q)Bap p9uii»9Mi tB su.iooui jiaift jaifljau 'punoqe 89i|U(Bp80un 10 ^ajA ui 'aBe ja|»i^jouaipiiyo SunoA p SBSK) u| •oi •aieaA 91, o^ oi P dnoj6 a6e pue sjeaA oi (^ §10dn<u6 aBe atft U{MIIM 6uj||B»uajpiiyo paseaosp 81^ uaasWtQq uououi|8|p speui uoiiesusdtuoo ey|»i^tuo98|n<^ BdMipBA/l 8t®1ui }jnQo siyi e,, _^^&...:^. ^t-' ,.^^^. ^ y-, ^.^^..^ 8 y®-i'^» ^ .-^' --&• /•? •' ^/ satisfied, is ju^ and proper compensation and does not <%iH for any enhancement in this appeal. 9) The appeal fited by the appellanls/ clsrfmants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fette arrd is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge pachna