HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH BILASPUR
Misc Appeal No 847 of 2004
1 Heman
2 Smt Hira Bai
...Petitioners
Versus
1 Birjuram
2 Prem Chand Jain
3 Oriental Insurance Company Limited
...Respondents
! Mr Wasim Miyam counsel for the Petitioners
^ Mr P P Sahu counsel for respondents No 1 and 2 Mr Avinash Mishra counsel for respondent No 3
CORAM : Honble Shri Justice Rangnath Chandrakar
Dated : 29/4/2011
: Judgement
ORDER
29-04-2011
1. This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the
compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short, “the Tribunal”) vide award
dated 17-1-2004 passed in Claim Case No. 133/2004.
2. As against the compensation of Rs.11,52,000/- claimed
by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased
Damru, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on
25-4-2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 55,000/-
as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual
payment.
3. Shri Wasim Miyam, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in
awarding low compensation of Rs. 55,000/- only though the
appellants’ son deceased Damru was only son upon whom the
appellants depended at their old age.
4. Per contra, Shri Avinash Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company
Limited, supporting the impugned award contended that as
deceased Damru was not having any independent income of his
own, the compensation of Rs. 55,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
5. Shri P.P. Sahu, learned counsel for respondents No. 1
and 2 the owner and driver of the offending vehicle also
supported the award.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused
the impugned award and record of the Tribunal.
7. On perusal of the record, it is clear that appellants’
son Damru was shown to be 5 years of age in his postmortem
report (Ex.P/7) at the time of accident. Heman (AW/1),
father of the deceased Damru, has categorically deposed in
his statement that at the time of accident, his son Damru
was about five years old and was a student of Ist standard.
On a close scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence, it is proved
that the age of deceased Damru was certainly five years at
the time of accident.
8. Hon’ble the Supreme Court while considering as to what
would be the just and proper compensation for the death of a
child aged about 7 years in the case of 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 deceased children 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 uncertainties abound,
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.”
9. The compensation of Rs. 55,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal when 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 the fact that the
appellants’ son Damru was about 5 years on the date of the
accident, I am satisfied, is just and proper compensation
and the same does not call for any interference in this
appeal.
10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the
appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is
liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
11. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
