@ CLASSVIANTS ^i r;' : SHR! S.R. NAYAK, CJ & SHRI D.R. J. 1. Smt. Kamla Brijwasi, W/o Late Ramfal Brijwasi, Aged about 36 years 2. Ku. Sandhya Brijwasi, D/o Late Ramfal Brijwasi, Agedabout 15years 3. Soma! Brijwasi, S/o. Late Ramfa! Brijv^asi, 6 years Appeilant nos. 2 to 4 are minors through their naturaS guardian Mother Smt. Kamla Brijwasi, W/o Late RamfaE Brijwasi, R/op VstEage - Teisara, Poiice Station - Chakarbhata, District -- Bitespur, (C.G.). 1. Aashutosh Sharma, Aged about 23 years, S/o Rajendra Kumar Sharma, R/o - Kaya, P.0. - Senwaar, DIstrict ~ Bitaspur, (C.G.) 2. Anand Kumar Sharma, S/o Rajendra Kumar Sharma, R/o - Kaya, P.0. - Senwaar, District-~ Bllaspur, (C.G.) 3. Bajaj AIIianz tnsurance Company Limited, Shiv Bhavan, Jeevan Bhima Marg, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandari Raipur, Tahsil & District ~ Raipur, (C.G.) Present: Shri Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. (Passed on 01st August, 2006) £.-' -2-- The folfowing oral order of the Court was passed by S.R. NAYAK, CJ. in a death case, the widow and the chiidren of the deceased not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the K4ACT, have preferred this appeai under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (forshort "the Act") for more compensatlon. 2. Leamed counse! appearing for the appelfants would contend that the deceased was a carpenter and he was earnjng monthly income of Rs.6,000/-, whereas the MACT has taken his income at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month and on that basis, assessed the ioss of dependency. it was also contended that what has been awarded towards 'ioss of !ove and affection for children' and 'Eoss of consortium to the widow' is on lower side. !t was also contended that the MACT ought to have awarded more compensation towards medical treatment of the before he expired. 3. Having heard the iearned counsel for the appeliants and having perused the impugned award and other materia!s appended to the appea!, we do not find any substantive ground to entertain this appeal and we are of the considered opinion that cumulatively what has been awarded by the MACT, in the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, is a just and reasonable compensation contempiated under the Act. 4. Although, it was claimed that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.6,000/-, that plea remains as a plea on!y without substantiation by adducing any lega! evidence. Except self-serving testimony of the widow that the deceased was earning monthly jncome -s- ^N1^' of Rs.6,000—, is no iota of independent to support that piea. !n the absence of such evidence, we cannot take any exception to the impugned award taking the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month for the purpose assessing loss of dependency. There is also no merit in the submission that the MACT ought to have awarded more compensation towards medicai expenses incurred by the family of the deceased before he expired. The impugned award Vifouid di'scSose that the claimants have produced the biijs for Rs.1,43,844.89/- on!y, whereas the MACT has awarded a sum of Rs.1,47,844.89/- adding Rs.4,000/- towards speciai diet etc. The MACT has awarded sum of Rs.5,000/- towards !oss of consortium, sum of Rs. 15.000/- towards loss of iove and affection, sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funera! expenses and sum of Rs.2,500/- towards ioss of estate. Thus, it has awarded totat compensation of Rs.5,59,344.89/-. The appeal is devoid of merit and It is accordingly dlsmissed at the stage of admjssion without notice to the other side. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge yy~