m. :^ B HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR M.A; No. 916 of2005 AppeUants 1. 2. 2. c G Sxat, Shama Paiveeii, W/o Baadshah Salaxaat Khaii, aged about 40 years. Baadshah Salaxxiat KIian, a^d 42 yeare, S/o Sh^ifiiillah Khaii, Mcrtor Driver, Bofh R/o Neluu Nagar, Viifchadra Nagar, Raipur, Tchsil and Distdct- Raipur(C.G.). Versus Respondeiits 1, MoM, AbdulRahixii,a^^ ^ S/o Mohd. Abdul, Truck Driver. UpeiidraKmiMrDubey,S/oGir^ Chamira Dubey, Tryck Owner. Addrcss ofbofh No. 1 aad 2 is - MS Serviee Statkm Tc^aoxlha, Raipur, Tehsil and District- Raipur (C.G.). The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. DivisiODalOfficeNo.7,102/AShri Arvmdo Saanii, Haafhi Bagaaa, Calcutta- 7000006, Divisional Maoager, Divisional Offic^^ K^^ Chowk, Jail Raad, Raipur (C.G.). DB: Hon'ble Shri Jiistice S. R. Nayak, C.J. & Hoxi>ble Shri Justiee Sati^h K. AffaShatn^J. Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate, fbr fhe appellants, Mr, PrashaDtJayaswal, Sexiior Advocate witti Shri AliAsgar, Advocate fbr fhe Respoiident No.3. 3. (..-r' :\ 1. ORAL ORDBR (14th December 2005) -:,-^^-:.., The followii^g order offhe Coiutwas passed by 8. R. Wayak, C.J. The dependents offhe deceased have come up wifh fhis appeal for more compensation, It was contended by leaTQed couiisel for fhe appeUant fhat the M.A.C,T. was not justified iia takmg fhe incx^ine of tfae deceased af notional rate as Rs. 15,000/- per anniitn for assessic^ loss of depemiexicy. It was also coiitemied tttat what is awarded by fhe M,A.C.T. tcnvards <loss to fhe estate' and <fu^^ expenses^ is madequate. It was also contended that fhe M.A,C,T. ViSSiw^. 'KiSSi&S^. <. c c ^ was not justified in not awardiag compensation for toss of fiUal kwe. 2. We do not fiind any menf in fbs fiirat Gortteiition. The deceawd was 18 years ofa^on fhe date ofaccideat and hewas mrt aii educated maa. It has come ia evidence fhat he was assistmg his fafher, who was driver of fhe motor vehicle. Alfhough, it was claimed ttiat flie deceased was eaniiiig montfaly mcome of Rs. 4000/- on par witfa his fefheiv fhere is absohitely no evid^aa^ to siipport fhis claim, In fhe absence of any other evidence fhe M.A.QT* was right m takmg fhe income pf fhe deceased at a notional ra.tc, However^we found considerable fbrce in fbe ofher grievaDces of the appellaat. What is awaxded towanls loss to fhe estate' aad 'ftuieral expeiises^ caimot be regarded as just aiid asoiiable in fhe facts and dircumstances of fhe case. Thercforc, we awaid siim ofRs. 20,000/- towards <toss to fhe estate' as agaiDist Rs. 2500/- awarded by tfae Tribunal, F^irther, we award Rs. 5000/- towards fuaeral expenses as agaiast Rs. 2000/-. The parcnts of fhe deceased are entitfed to reasonable compensation under fhe head <loss of fiUal love^ Tliercforc, we awani sum of Rs. 20,000/- uuoder fhe said head. The impugned award shafl stand modiJGed acconlingfy. In att other respecte the inipugned award shatt remafca iinaltered. Nocosts. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SATJSHK.AGNIHOTRI Judge Thakur ^••—