HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH; BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. !VI.A.C.No.13S2of2008 Appellants : 1. Bisauharam, Son of Shri Tihariram Sahu, aged about 50 years, Onvi/er ofthe vehicle, Tactor No.CG-IO/A/6540 and Trolley No. CG 10/ZG/2026, resident of Village Jhajhpurikala, Police Station and Tahsjl Lormi, District Bilaspur (CG) Owner 2. Ganeshram, Son of Shri Chhannulai Yadav, aged about 23 years, Driver of the Vehicle, Tractor No. CG-10/A/6540 and Trolley No.CGIO/ZG/2026, resident of Village Rehutta, Police Station and Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (CG) Versus Respondent : 1 Narayan Das, son of Shri Seva Das Vaishnav, aged about 26 years, 2 Smt. Usha Das, wife of Shri Narayan Das Vaishnav, aged about 22 years (Claimants) Both resident of Village Gadatola (Khamhi), Police Station and Ta.hsil Lormi. District Bilaspur (CG) 3 The New India Insurance Company Limited, Bus Stand Chowk, Bilaspur (CG) (Insurer) Memo^ofARReal ynderSectjon 173 ofthe^MotorVehicte Act, 1S8& Present: Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel for the appeliants. ORAL ORDER (Passedon21.11.2008) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the default has been removed and the receipt of statutory deposit has been filed. (2) Heard on admission. Record is perused. (3) The appellants are aggrieved by the award dated 21 .OS.2007 passed by the 2 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC) Mungeli, Bilaspur (CG) (henceforth the Tribunaf') in claims oase No.26/2007, whereby in a case of aocidental death of a child aged 1 % years, the Tribunal ha; -2.. z. awarded compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- while exonerating the insurer from the fiability to pay oompensation. (4) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he is assailing the impugned award only on the ground of quantum and not on the ground of liabiiity to pay compensation. He placed reHance on Oriental Insuranoe Co. Lfd. vs. Sved Ibiahim anct othars (2007) 11 Supreme Court Cases 512 and Gai/a Prasaa AaravBl & Another vs. T.A. Reddv & Others 2008 (2) C.G.L.J. 337 (DB) and urged that the Tribunal ought to have awarded oompensation ofRs.51,000/-only. (5) In this appeal, brief facts are that on 15.1.2007 due to rash and negligent driving by the appellant No.2, of Tractor bearing No. CG-10/A/6540 to which fhe trolley bearing No. CG IOfZ.G/2026 (henceforth the 'Tractor and Trolley') was attached, Ajay Das, a child aged 1 % years, who \'vas accompanying his father on a cycle, died. The Tractor and Trolley were owned bythe appellant No.1 and insured bythe respondent No.3 on the date of accident. The Tribunal placed reliance on National india Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satender & Ors. AIR 2007 Supreme Court 324 and av/arded compensation ofRs.1,80,000/-. (6) So far as the case law cited by the iearned counsel for the appellants are concerned, they are distinguishable. In Gayaprasad Agrawal's case (supra) where compensation of Rs.50,000/- v/as av/arded in case ofdeath of a ohild aged 2 Vi years, the accident had oocurred on 28.2.1988 while in Orientai Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Syed Ibrahim and others (supra), the accident had occurred in the year 1994. In fhe present case, the accident had occurred on 15.1.2007. With the steep fail in the value of money over the years, compensation ofRs.51,000/- cannot be said to bejust and reasonabie compensatiop' The Supreme Court has in National India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satender & Ors (supra) a case of death of a child aged 9 years, awarded compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-. In the oase of Manju Devi and another vs. Musafir Paswan and another, 2005 (1) T.A.C. 609 (S.C.), the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- in a case of death of boy aged 13 years. In GovincS Prasad Tamrakar and another Vs. Mohan Lal and others 2007 (1) ACCD 68 (CG) a judgmenf rendered by the Division Bench ofthis Court, compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- was held to be just and reasonable compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child aged 15 years. sk ' .^ ?if j \. ^/ (7) In the present case, it cannot be denied that the claimants/parents had a reasonable expectation of peouniary benefit. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion ttiat the compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonabte oompensation. There is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed af the stage of admission^ Priya ^£Desb®u ^^s"