HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR (SB: Hon'ble Shri JusticeRangnath Chandrakar) Misc. Appeal (0 No. 473 of 2006 Appellants Claimants ResDondents 1. Harprasad Sahu, aged about 31 years, son of late Agrahij Ram Sahu. 2. Smt. Chanda Bai Sahu, aged about 26 years, wifeof Har Prasad Sahu. Both residents of village Sargaon, P.S. Hirri, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG). Versus 1. Kaushal Singh Netam, aged about 25 years, son of Ramdhani Netam, resident of Old Sarkanda Lodhipara, Bilaspur,P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG). 2. Ramadhin Netyam, aged about 50 years, son of late Pyarelal Netam, resident of Old Sarkanda Lodhipara, Bilaspur,P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG). 3. The United India Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager, Branch Office Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur (CG). (Misc. Appeal underSection 173 ofthe IViotorVehicle Act, 1988) Present: Mr. Gautam Khetrapal and Mr. Avinashchand Sahu, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent No. 3. ORDER (30-6-2011) 1. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur w ^ ry' 6. (forshort, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 8-8-2006 passed in Claim CaseNo. 85/2005. As against the compensation of Rs.7,19,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Rakesh Kumar by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 30-4-2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the dateof filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. Mr. Gautam Khetrapal and Mr. Avinashchand Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued thatthe Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- only though the appellants' son deceased Rakesh Kumar was a student of KG-II and stood first in his class. Percontra, Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 - The United India Insurance Company Limited, supported the impugned award and contended that as deceased Rakesh Kumar was not having any independent income of his own, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award and record ofthe Tribunal. From perusal of the record, it is clear that appellants' son deceased Rakesh Sahu was shown to be 4 years of age in his postmortem report (Ex.P/7) at the time of accident and was a student of KG-2. M:^^:^^. KS^^ "^ '% ' R...........^."1 'mM^ oy 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court while considering as to what wouldbe the just and proper compensation for the death of a child aged about 7 years in the caseof Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Syed Ibrahim and others, reported in 2007 (4) TAC 385 (SC) has observed in paras 9 & 10 which read as below: "9. This court in Lata Wadhwa while computing compensation made distinction between the deceasedchildren falling within the age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 years. \ 10. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertaintiesaround, neither their income at the time of death nor the proposals 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 certainty. Therefore, neither is the income of the deceased child capable of assessment on estimated basis nor is the financial loss suffered by the parents capable of mathematical computation." The Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Syed Ibrahim and others (supra) held that t he compensation of Rs.51,500/- was just and proper compensation for the death of a child aged about seven years. 8. Thecompensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunalwhen examined in the context of the above-mentioned dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra) and ttie fact that the appellants' son Rakesh Kumar was about four years on the date of the accident, 1 am satisfied, is just and proper compensation and the same does not call for any interference in this appeal. 9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10. No orderas to costs. g R.N. Chandrakar Judge Raju