BSTTEIEHON'BLEmGH COUKTOF CEfflATnSGARH ATBILASPUR ,e»__» „ _e ||^ ^i<5;lu^^V MA.CQNO. VoS /20ll AVPRT ,TANT OWNKR ^ .H^ IA'.y' '^ ,%^;^ ^$c<<7^ ^^ycyj *^ RES'ONDENTS lajeshwar Prasad Jaiswal, S/o. Ganga Prasad Jaiswal, aged about 53 years, R/o. village Salgawan Kala, Police Station & Tahsil Sonhat, District Korea (C.G.) •jL.Owner ofoffending v^hicle i.e. Tractorno. CG l6/E-oi8o andTroUevbearme reeistration no. CGi6/E-oax2 1] -VERSUS Sanjay Kumar Singh, S/o. Ram Nagina Singh, aged about 38 years, R/o. Sonhat, Tahsil Sonhat, District Korea (C.G.) 2] Renu Singh, W/o. Sanjay Kumar Singh, aged about 34 years, R/o. Sonhat, Police Station and Tahsil Sonhat, District Korea (C.G.) ^ ......Claiinants Ramsai @ Sadhu, S/o. Jagsai Khairwar, aged about 32 years, R/o. village Salgawan Kala, Police Station & Tahsil Sonhat, District Korea (C.G.) ...Driver of offending vehicle i.e. Tractor no. CG i6/E-Ql8o AFPEALUNDERSECnON l7S OFTtIEMOTOR VHna^ACT :^! HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BB-.ASPUR M.A('C)No.403of2011 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Rajeshwar Prasad Jaiswal VERSUS Sanjay Kumar Singh & others fMisc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act) SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Asarwal Present : Shri Manoj Paranjpe with Shri Vikram Dixit, Advocates for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 01.04.2011) Heard on admission. 1. This is owner's appeal against the award dated 27.01.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea, m claim case No. 34/2008, awarding Rs.l, 80,000/- as compensation in favour ofthe claimants along with interest @ 6 percent from the date offiling ofapplication till its payment. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the appellant are that: on 22.12.2007, Rajeev Kumar, aged about 12 years (smce deceased) while going to School by bicycle, the driver of Tractor bearing registration No. CG-16-E-0-180 dashed him by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. B>- :?ia;!&'v f ^! 3. As against Rs. 50,50,0007- claimed by the parents of deceased, the Tribunal, awarded total sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date ofapplication till its payment. 4. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, leamed counsel appearing for the appellant would submit: Tribunal has erred in awarding high compensation to the claimants which deserves to be suitably reduced. He further submits that looking to the facts situation of the case, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Syed Ibrahim and Others , by which the Supreme Court has affirmed the award of leamed Tribunal awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 51,5007- in case of death ofchild of4 years old, is applicable in the present case, and therefore, the claimants are entitled only for Rs. 51,500/- as compensation for the death ofdeceased Rajeev. 5. I have heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and pemsed the order impugned. 6. In the instant case, claim is in respect of death of child of 12 years old. The Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Syed Ibrahim (Supra) has held in para 9 & 10 of its judgment as under : ^,- "9. This Court in Lata Wadhwa's case (supra) while computing compensation made distinction between *2007(11)SCC512 .^"3"~%. j"' ,-y ""^ 'i »? r?,. l 1 "%?'¥% £ ~r:.\ • '•:••" • .': ^^ •?ii~"-y deceased children falling within the age group of5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 years. 10. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of 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 detennination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertamties in regard to their academic piu-suits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither is the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor is the financial loss suffered by the parents capable of mathematical computation. 7. Same view has been re-iterated by the Supreme Court in case of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satendra & others (Supra) wherein the Supreme Court has awarded a sum ofRs. 1,80,000/- for death of a child aged about 9 years. The Supreme Court has held in para 11 to 13 as under : "11. This Court in Lata Wadhwa's case (supra) while computing compensation made distmction between dece&sed children falling within the age group of5to 10 years and age group of 1.D to 15 years. 12. In cases ofyoung children of tender age, in view of ^"" uncertainties aboimd, 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 early 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 with reasonable certamty. Therefore, neitfaer the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation. 13. Applying the principles indicated in Jasbir Kaur's case (supra) to the facts of the preseat case we think award ofa sum ofRs.1,80,000/- would meet the ends of justice. The same shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of petition till payment is made. Payment shall be made within a period ofthree months from today. Amounts, if any, already paid shall be adjusted from the aforesaid amount ofRs.1,80,000/-" 8 . In view of ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above refen'ed cases, it cannot be said trial court has erred in awarding aforesaid amount of compensation relying upon the judgment of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satendra & others (Supra). 9. No other points have been raised by the appellant's counsel. 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sahu Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge '•••«: