HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRt RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants M.A.(C)No.83of2010 1 Dr Yashpal Singh Marabi, S/o Chhakke Lal aged about 41 yeare 2 " Smt Ramkali Marabi w/o Dr Yashpal Marabi aged about 40 years caste Gond Both r/o village Dogariya Thana & Tahsil Marwahi District Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS Non - Appellants 1 (Claimants) (Driver) (Owner) (Insurer) Mohan Singh S/o Dhyan Singh Non - Gond aged about 25 years 2. Ramsharan Patel S/o Baldev Patel Both resident of village Tendumuda Thana & Tahsil Marwahi Distt Bilaspur (CG) 3. The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Division Office Second Floor Shri Rama Tread Center, In front of Rajlv Plaza, Bilaspur (CG) Miscellaneous appeal u/S. 173 ofthe Motor VehiclesAct.1988 Present: Shri Yogefidra Chaturvedi, counsel for the appellants. ORDER rth (27m January, 2010) _^ /'-" \^ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Yogendra Chatuvedi, leamed counsel for the appellants is heard or> I.A. N6. 01/2010, an appllcation for condonation ofthe delay in filing the appeat. 2. On due consideration of the submissions of leamed counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appetlants have succeeded in showing sufFicient cause forthe delay in filing the appeal. 3. I.A. No. 01/2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 47 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri Yogendra Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 05.09.2009, passed in Claim Case No.7/2009. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.12,50,(XX)/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of decessed child Mukesh, aged about 6 years, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 28.10.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,30,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of fillng of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. ^ iSK] '% 0 7. Shri Yogendra Chaturvedi, leamed counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ;30,000/- only. 8. The Apex Court whileconsidering as to what would be the just and prpper compensation for the death of a child agedabout 7 years in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Syed Ibrahim and others," reported in 2007 (4) TAC-385 (SC) observedin paras 9 & 10: "9. This Court in Lata Wadhwa white computing compensation made distinction between the deceased children faltlng within the age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10to 15 yeara. 10. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither thelr 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 r^ard 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 the ^ g'l ^/ a'~.v^y "i~-s-rs^'fr compensation of Rs.51,500/- was just and proper compensaBon for the death of a child aged about seven years. 9. Now reverting to the present case, admittedly, the appellants' son Mukesh was aged 'about 6 yeare on the date of the accident. The compensation of Rs.1,30,0007- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra), we are satisfied, does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 10. We, therefore, do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily—"s=~ Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- R-N.Chandrakar Judge '^ ''Rt _^