HIGH. COURTQF CHHA'ITINSGARJIALELLASPUR g/§/‘ N9. 550 Q1: 2005 Appellants 1. Smt. Shakun (iii; ui] aged about 23 years, W/o Late Shri Chetan Goswami. 2. Minor Kumari Chanchal Giri. ‘ Goswami, aged about 1 years, D/o Late Shri Chetan Giri Goswami, (Appellant No.2 being minor, on behalf of through her legal- Guardian mother the appellant No. 1.) RaJnesh Gin' Goswami, aged about 48 years, S/o Bajrang Gin' Goswami. 4. Smt, Rama Grin' Goswami, aged about 45 yeam, W/o Ramesh Gin' Goswalm', V. a .. 5. K11. Preeti Goswami, aged about 1'7 years (Minor), Dfo Ramesh Giri Goswami. Goutam Giri Goswami, aged about 14 years (Minor), S/o Ramesh Giri Goswami (Appellant No, 5 and 6 being minor, on behalf of through their legal- Gardian mother the appellant No.4) All the resident of Village- Sarona, Post O$ce- Tatibandh, Raipur, Tahsil and District— Raipur (C.G.) A @ a t w Versus Respondents 1, Santosh Yadav, aged about 28 years, S/o Late D.D.S. Yadave, R/o Sangam Chowk, New Khurshipar Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.). 2. The United Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Chloe, Kutchely Chowk, Raipur, District— Raipur (C.G.) Policy issued by The United Insmanoe Company Limited, Press Complex, Gurudwara, Station Road, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.). DB; Hon’b’le Sim Justice s. R. Nayak, on. 8r, Hon’ble Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vinay Harit, Senior Advocate with Shn‘ Narayan Shrivastava, Advocate for the Respondent No.3. H ORAL ORDER ( 2nd December 2005) Tht: following order of the Court‘was passed by S. R. Nayak, C,J. This is an appeal by the dependents of the deceased seeking mom compensation. The only contention urged by leatned couhsel for the appellants in the eourse of healing is that the deceased was 26 years aged on the date of accident and therefore, the appropriate mnltiplier to assess the loss of dependency is 18 and not 17 as has been applied by the M.A.C.T. The other contention urged by learned counsel for the appellants in the course of healing is that the M.A.C.T. is not justified in not awarding any compensation under the conventional heads i.e. ‘loss of consortium’, ‘10ss of estate’ and ‘loss of love and ah'ection to the minor child’ and ‘loss to the estate’. It is trite that in a death case, the dependent widow and minor childnen are entitled to reasonable compensation under the conventional heads, mentioned above, There is no justification for the M.A.C.'I‘. to deny compensation under those heads. In that View of the matter we awa1d sum of Rs. 20,000/~ towards loss of consortium, Rs. 20,000/— towards loss of love and ah‘ection and Rs. 20,000/- towards loss to the estate. The impugned award shall stand modified accordingly. In all other respects the impugned award shall remain unaltered. The parties shall bear their u , respective costs in this appeal. A n H I h Sd/— , Sd!' , . T : SATISH K. ANGNIHOTRI Chief Justice. . Judge