HIGH GOURTF JUDIGAT UR ‘ARH) ‘O URE AT BILASP iGHHATTISG N’E SR‘- . ’E I .. , MA (6) N120 f 00 . o. o 26 St m In a! age year /o shn Tlkaram Sah c' H B d 40 s W u Ocu atlon ouse wnfe lkaram au age e o a a ' " K Sh d 1 uman Laxmt au age 2 ears dauhter of J'Ikaram Sa are reSIan o Suner Naga howk Dangamya Mod Krishn agar. Raur District Ralu C G ( ) CLAIMANTS, rs ’ A Rpdts M d 38 yes esonen : ahendra Smgh age ar on of Moolchand Smg sient of Clo akash ndusnes ing oa S h red Pr lt Ltd R Rd Na 2 oaon Rarpur C upa son of Gupta esrdent of Prak "t td Rmg Road o oaon alpur C G e rrenta surance oman td Through Drwsronal Manage lvrslonal Offce Chl omplex Devenra aga arp ,"Pesentfi‘ S e s; r hri PraVeen/Tulyan; counsel fo‘‘r the appellant ORAL ORDER 08" November, zoos. ( * ) he foliowrng ora orer o e Court was passed ‘ HOBL HISR. NAYAKCJ. HONBL SHR VK SHRIVASTAVA J. T Sh d 45 yars ‘sn of Shn Rm Lal shu y g hu AH dt f d r C a N m pr - Veus - 1. Gg ( G ) V K Gt A K , R a hlndusnes L N 2 Gg, R ( ) Th Ot m Cpy L r D No 2 awa c d Nr Rur T f d f th by t in the oral evidene f the wido f th d it I is true that c o w o e eceased, as stated that the decease w erin ohl ncome of Rs.5000/- bein w d as ang mnty i . g a _ upervisOr in atransort'coman' Tha‘mstmon wou not come o te ai o t ish that the deceased was m fact eami hy e he claimants to establ ng mont mcom o y, d d f Rs 5 OOOI- Admittedl the claimants di not produce salary certiticate an t e y h h dd s hey have also not examind the emploer under wom te ecease wa orkin Thé- claimants are he mother, father and unamed sster of the t m‘ i dceased. e (2) cl t ’ustfied in applying the multiier of 15 for assessing the loss of dependency. i pl l lt was next contended by Ieamed counsel fr the appellants ~— o claimants‘that the deceased was eaming monthly inc:ome of Rs.5,000/-, whereas the MACT has taken the monthly income of the deceéséd at Rs.3,000/- far assessing the loss of dependency. lt was also contended by the learned counsel f the appellants that the compensation awarded under the cnvntional head is or oe l on lowe side. r / ,4) u Te deceased was aged 20 years on the date of the aident and demise. On h cc the date of the accident the age of the mother wasl40 years and the age of the ther was 45 years, and average age of the parenw wuld come to 42.5 years fa o . The MACT has appiied multiplier 15 quite rightly having regard to the average jg (3) Having hd ieamed counsel for the appelan$, we do not hnd any ear l ge of the prents fr assessing loss of dependency. Therefore, no excetion a a o p c a li ,\ 5 () n the absence of any subsantive ega evence, the ... ha ‘ Wg. What was urged before us by learned counsel for. the appellants - aimants is hat having regard to the age of the eceased the MACT is not ( sbstantive or weighty ground to interfere With the award passed by the MACT. ould be tken to applying mUItiper 15. S ppy tiy ld t h d f l t ll id MIACT s ceasd af3d1 f pp f essing e t-Rs.,0_00_- orthe urose o ass éken‘monhy icome of the'de ttir n loss of dependency ' (6) eceased what has been awarded uner t anot be cond ensa'awarded‘ y the M A.C.T., In te ac e are satusfled hat te com ust ad reasonabl imstances of the case and evrdence on recor Is lated under thwMM. “Act. :No ground is made ou fo comnsti ontem inerference. t ea! rs devoid of merrt and It Is accordrngly drsmrswd a t tage of admrssron lSelf wrthout notice to the other sidej ”a Sd/— Chief Justice l l 3 x l e limants being mothet, father and younger Sister of the veonal heads run the facts and rcumta f th e, cisnces o e cas W t h land Crcu d peaon c Th p e a s G? 1f l l l l S— V.K.Shrivastava Judge Th ca e connti d d n cn emned as arbitrary or unreasonable ption h fts r n e p e t r p t he / K l w