HI HC U’ TOF JUDIC TU 6HHATTISGARH : BILA PUR LpMsloN BENCH} cORAM : Hon'ble shri s.R. Nayak, CJ Hon’hle Shn' Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Misc. Appeal No. 968 OF 2005 Present: Mr. S.C. Verma, Iearned counsel for appellants. Mr. Shree Kumar Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K. Gupm, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2,1Insurance Company. ORAL ORDEB (Passed on 15 ofDecember 2005) The following order of the court was passed Igy SR Nayak, CJ. ‘ The parents are the claimants and the deceased was their son aged about 19 years, on the date of accident. This appeal is preferred seeking more compensation. Leamed counsei for the appellants would contend that the ‘M.A.C.T. is not justified in taking the income efrthe deceased at the APPELLANTS 1. Deshram Matwale. S/o CLAINANTS \flpatram Matwala Aged about 44 years Kanti Bai. Wlo Deshram Matwale, Aged about 40 years. Both Rio village Chicha. P.O. Pataud, RS. Mandirhasaud, Tahsil Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) Versus Sanjay Banjare, Sic Sudhafam Baniare Village Chicha, P.O. Palaud, P.S. Hasaud. Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) (Owner) , The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Division Manager, Office Kachahari - Chowk, Jaii Road, Raipur, Tahsii & District, Raipur (C.G.) (insurer) notional rate of Rs. 15,GOG/—,per annum, because, he was working as a mason. lt was, aiso contended that the M,A.C.T. is not justified in not awarding any compensation towards l0ss of filial love and loss to estate. We do not find any merit in the fwst contention. Except the self-serving statement of the ciaimants that the deceased was a mason, no evidence‘ eithet oral or documentary, was adduced before M.A.C.T. lt is quite doubtfui that the deceased at the young age of 19 years could be a skilled workman undertaking masonry. However, we find force in the other gtievancelof the appellants that the M.A.C.T. ought to have awarded reasonable compensation towards loss of lilial love and loss to estate. ln that view of the matter, we award sum of Rs.‘20,000/- owards loss of filial love and another Rs. 20.000l- towards lose to estate: The impugned award shall stand modified accordingly, ln all other respects, the impugned award shall stand unaltered. There shall be no order as to costs. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/_ t on :H bd o' a ’i, .\ \ i Satish K. Agnihom : Chief Justice ‘ I ¥ j~/ > ierro e .v,_.# t