® HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram : HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & \ HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal Na. 41 of 2066 APPELLANT Sahodra Bai, widow I of Late CLAIMANT Mangal Rajak, Caste-Dhobi, aged about 40 years, occupation- Labour & Housewife, R/o. Viuage Chhirha, P.O. Chhirha, P.S. Nawagarh, Tahsii Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) ~ Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Prahaiad Singh Rajpoot, son of NON-APPLICANTS Krishna Singh, aged about 31 years, Rio Village Majgaon, P.O. Chhirha, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) (Driver & owner of Tractor) 2. United Insulance Company Ltd. Branch Office Mendekar Compiex, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur, District Eilaspur (C.G.) (INSURER) 3. Samaraj Singh, S/o. Dheiau Singh, aged about 33 years, Rlo. Village Chote Pauni‘ P.O. Bhareva, P.S. & Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G‘) (TROLLEY OWNER) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 Present: Shri Anand Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counsel foL respondent No.2. O R D E R {99m July, 2909) @ The folowing order of ' the Court was passed by l Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: \ Appellant Sahodra Bai, unfortunate mother of deceased child Doman Rajak, aged about six years is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District Durg (for short “the Tribunal”) vide award dated 11.1 1 .2005, passed in Claim Case No. 32/2005. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- claimed by .the appellant/ claimant by tiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of‘her son Doman Rajak aged about six years in the motor accident on 17.02.2005, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.52,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3. The Tribunal found that deceased child Doman Rajak was travelling in the Trolley attached to the Tractor and no document was produced before the Tribunal to establish that the Troliey was insured. The Tribunal, therefore, exonerated the insurance Company of its liability to pay compensation to the claimant and the owner and driver of the Tractor Trolley were heid liable to pay compensation to the ciaimant. 4. Shri Anand Kumar Tiwari, learned counsei for the appeliant vehemently argued that-the Tribunal has erred in awarding‘tow compensation of Rs.52,000l— only as deceased Doman Rajak would have extended support to his mother, appellant] claimant Sahodra Bai in her old age. Learned counsel further submitted \ that the Tribunal has further erred in exonerating the insurance Company of its Iiability to pay compensation to the claimant. 5. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawai, learned counsel for respondent No.2 The\ United insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the Troliey in which the deceased child was traveiling was never insured with the insurance Company, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance Company of its liability to pay compensation to the claimant. 6. It is not in dispute that deceased child Doman Rajak was travelling in the Trolley attached to the Tractor. Though a policy of insurance, (Ex-D/2) of the Tractor was produced before the Tribunal, no policy was produced before the Tribunal to indicate that the Trolley in question was also insured. It is also relevant here to mention that the owner of the Tractor is respondent No.1 Prahalad Singh Rajpoot, whereas the owner of the Trolley is respondent No.3 Sarwaraj Singh. 7. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the Trolley, in which deceased child Doman Rajak was travelling, was not insured at the relevant time and as such the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 8. The compensation of Rs.52,000/— when examined in the context of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed lbrahim and others reported in 2007 (4) T.A.C. 385 (S.C.), wherein compensation of Rs.51,500/- was found to be just and proper compensation for the death of a child aged about seven years, we are satisfied, does not caii for any enhancement in this appeal. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fiied by the appeitant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as tocosts. \x\ sdi- Sd/- Chief Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge hlmml