,^ \^. HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HQN'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR. J. Misc. ABpeal No. 600 of 2006 Appellants Claimants 1 Smt Kamla Bai, VWo Shatrughan Sahu, aged about 47 years 2 Shatrughan Sahu, S/o Raghunath Sahu, aged-about 50 years (They both are parente (rf *he deceased) (They brth R/o VillE^e Gerwani, PS Kotwali, Raigarh,j Tahsil & Distrtet Raigarh (CG) y VERSUS Respondents 1. Nasur-ud-din Khan, S/o Salhn Khan, Profession-driver, Pathan Toli, Aurangabad, Di^rict - Aurangatod, Bihar 2. Mohammad Sulten, S/o AWul Vaheed, Profession - owmer, R/o Narki Khurd, PS Vishnugarh. Distrcit Hajaribag (Jharkhand) 3 The Oriental Insirarwe Company Ud., Branch Offlce, Gopi Talldes Road. MISC..APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR ^HICLES ACT. 1988. Present: ShriFSKhare, counsd for the appellante. Shrl Abhishek Sinha and Shri Varun Dubey, counsel for respondent No.3. OROER ith (04mApril,2011) ,^A ''"^1. /'^•"•^. I, x«:";isl 1 "-adsas""" \-'^ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased girl Ramuta, aged about 11 years are the appellanfs before us In thte appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tnbunal, Raigarh (for short "the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.12.2005, passed in Claim Case No.25/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.35,98,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased giri Ku.Ramula, aged about 11 yeare, by filir^ a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for herdeath m the mtrtor accident on 25.08.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,62,500/- as compensation along with intere^ @ 6% per annum from the date of flling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri FS Khare, leamed counsel Tor the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding tow compensation of Rs.1,62,5CX)/- only though the appetlants' daughter Ku.Ramula was a brilliant student and haKl a bright future. , 4) Shri Abhishek Slnha and Shri Vamn Dubey, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicte truck, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation i •;:'>. "•"^ of Rs.1,62,500/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 5) The Apex Court while considering as to vrtiat would be the Just and proper compensation for the death of a child aged about 7 years in the case of Oriental losurance Co. LM. Vs Syed Ibrahim and others, reported in 2007 (4) TAC-385 (SC) observed in paras 9 & 10: °9. This Court in Lata Wadhwa while computlng compensation made distinctton between the deceased children falling within the age-group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 yeara. 10. In cases of young cWldrwi cxf tender age, in view of uncertelnties abound, neither their income art thetimeof death nor the prospecte of the future increase in their income nor (rtiances of advancement of their career are capaUe 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 assumed wth reasonable certairty. Therefore, neither is the income of the deceased child capable of assessment on estimated basis nor is tlie financial loss suffered by the parents capable of mathematical computation." The Apex Court in the caseof Oriental Insurance Co. Ud. Vs Syed Ibrahim and others (supra) hetd that the compensation of Rs.51,500/- was Just and proper compensatfon for the death of a chikl ag«labout seven years. 6) The compensation of Rs.1,62,500/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above quot%l dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental InsuranceGo. Ltd., (supra) and the fact that the appetlants' dan.ighter Ku.RamuIa, admittedly, was aged about 11 years only on the ciate of the accident, we are satisfled, does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 7) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal flled by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensrtion is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dtemissed. 8) No order as to costs. _ g^_ Rangnath Chandrakar 1 Judge : Chief Justice subbu