AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rangnath Chandrakar, J.—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.
As against the compensation of Rs. 11,52,000/- claimed by the Appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Damru, by filing a claim petition u/s 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.
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.
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.
Shri P.P. Sahu, learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2 the owner and driver of the offending vehicle also supported the award.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award and record of the Tribunal.
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.
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. v. Syed Ibrahim and Ors. reported in 2007 (4) TAC 385 (SC) has observed in paras 9 & 10 which read as below:
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.
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.
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.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.