10! (^ RAJEEV GUi SUNEL KUMAR SiNHA, J. Ciaimants 1. Shri Samlu Sahu, S/o Dhunva Sahu, Aged about 45 years 2 SmtSudhara Bai, W/o Shri Samlu Sahu, Aged about 30 years, both R/o Vilisge - Chingrajpara, Khundru Bari, near Guru Ghasidas 'andir, Distt Biiaspur Shri Ghanshyam Prasad Sahu, S/o Juvadiram Sahu aged about 54 years, r/o Vittage Mopka, Police Station Sarkanda, Distt. iilaspur (CG) 2. Suresh Kumar Shedara, S/o Pritam Das Shedara R/o Juna Bllaspur Police Station - City Kotvaii, Tehsil & Distt : Bilaspur 3. Divisional Manager, The india Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajendra Nagar, Chowk, Distt Bilaspur (CG) lisc appeai under^ection 173 of Motor Vehicie AcS, 198i Preseni Smt. Bhagwati Kashyap, learned counsel for tne appellants. Shri Vimiesh Bajpai, learned counsel for respondent None of respondent No.2. Shri Q. Aziz, learned counsei respof rt No.3. i1st Apri The foltowina order of the Court was passed bv i, C.J.; ^ Learned counsel for the parties are heard on M.(C) .P. No.318/2005, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the appeai. 2) On due consideration^we aresatisfled that the appeilants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the deiay in filin< 3) M.C.P. No.318/2005, therefore, is allowed and delay in filin< sns appeai is nereoy conaonea. 4) Smt. Bhagwati Kashyap, iearned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5) The appeliants, unfortunate parents of deceased Suresh Kumar Sahu, are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additlonal Motor Accjdents Claims Tribunal, ilaspur (for short "She Tribunal") vide award dated 24.08.2004, passed in Claim Case No. 27/2004. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.5,60,000/- claimed by the appeilants / ciaimants by fiiing a ciatm petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of their minor son Suresh Kumar Sahu, aged about 6 years in the motor accident on 29.05.1999, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensafion along wlth interest @ 9% per annum from the date of Tilina of the claim pe 7) S-mt. Bhagwati vehemenfiy argued tt tion tlil the ashyap, rt the Tribunal has erred In awardina iow of actual psvment. counsel for the apoeliants compensation of Rs.80.000/- onlv, as deceased Suresh Kumar /•"'.^ .-'"'^^, "^el^s, j s>. V f. .^</" Sahu, was the oniy son of the appeilants and would have provided support to them in their old age. 5) The Apex Court while considerin.q the amount of just and proper compensation to be avvarded in the case of death of a chiid, aaed about 7 vears in the case of Oriental Insyrs lyed and others reported in 2007 (4) T.A.C. 3S observed in paras 8 and 9: "8. This Court in Lata Wadhwa's case (supra) vrfhiie computina compens.ation made distinction betv/een deceased chiidren faliina within the age group of 5 to 10 years and age jroup of 10 to 15 years. i. ln case of young children of tender ags 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 determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achieyements in carrier and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonabte certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment of estimated basis not the financial loss suffered y the parents is capable of mathematical S) The Apex Court in the above case whiie setting aside the enhancement of the compensation made by the High Court from v:, ^s^. Rs.51,500/- to Rs.1,52,000/-, restored the smount of compensation of Rs.51,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. 10) The compensation of Rs.80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in the present case w^en examined in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurarice Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim and others (supra) and the fact that appellants' son Suresh Kumar Sahu was aged about 6 years oniy, we 11) satisfied, isjust and proper compensation. Ne, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12) The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby disrnlssed summarily. ^----- -----___ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge ••"@-.