Hari Ram vs New India Insurance Co. and Others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

Appellant Hari Ram is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 21.06.2000, passed in Claim Case No. 15/2000.

As against the compensation of Rs. 4,75,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of his minor son Puniram in the motor accident on 14.11.1999, when the tractor in which he was travelling met with an accident and overturned due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

Shri M.K. Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs. 50,000/- only, as the deceased child Puniram would have extended support to the appellant in his old age.

Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1 on the other hand placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Syed Ibrahim and others reported in 2007 (4) T.A.C. 385 (S.C.), contended that the compensation of Rs. 50,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly in line with the dictum of the Apex Court.

Appellant''s son Puniram was aged about 10 years on the date of the accident. The claimant pleaded that his minor son Puniram used to assist him in his business of selling groundnut.

The Apex Court in the case of Syed Ibrahim (supra) while assessing just and proper compensation in the said case for the death of a child aged about 7 years observed in paras 8 and 9.

This Court in Lata Wadhwa''s case (supra) while computing compensation made distinction between 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 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 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 the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment of estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation.

On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties; above mentioned broad features of the case; and the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.