mum o: JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Cg i {DIVISION BENCH) CGRAM : Hon’ble Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ Hon’ble Shri D.R. Deshmukh, J. Misc. Appeal No. 1195 OF. 2005 Smt. Saraswati Pillai, Aged about 40 years. Wlo Late Ramchandran Pillai Ranjit Kumar Pillai, Aged about 17 years, Minor. Slo. Late Ramchandran Pillal, 1. 3. Ku. Ramya Pillai, Aged about 12 years, Minor. D/o. Late Shri Ramchandran Piliai. Both minor‘ appellant no. 2 & 3 are being represented through mother appellant no. 1 . AH resident of Ponce Wireless Colony, Police Station House Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) LANTS NTS 2: Versus NDENTS 1 . -PPLICANTS . Aruh Kumar Pandey, S/o. Ramsurat aged about 25 years, Driver, Resident of Chhatamuda Chowk. Baipass, Bangal-Bihar Transport, Raiga'rh, Tehsil & DistrictRaigarh (C.G.) Jogendar Singh, Sic. Vasudev Singh, Owner of the Vehicle R/o,, Chhaiamuda Chowk, ,Baipass, Bangal- Bihar Transport. Raigarh, Tehsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) The Oriental insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) Policy Cover Note No. 1631 27. Due dated 23/1 0/03 to 22/1 0104 i Present: Shri Sourabh Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Prashant Mishra, learned Sr. Advocate With Shri H.S. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. HIGH APPEL CLAIMA ! ’ , . RESPO NONA > \ > -2, ORAL ORDER (Passed on 9m of January 2006) U The following Order of the Court was passed by s.R. Nayak, CJ: The dependents of3the deceased not being satisfied with the {compensation awarded by the MACT have preferred this appeal seeking Emore compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend . that the MACT is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,751.34 Ps. for the purpose of assessing loss of dependency. Ewes also contended that what is awarded towards loss of consortium is on lower side. lt was also contended that no compensation is awarded towards loss of estate. It was also contended that the MACT oug‘ht to have awarded reasonable compensation towards loss of love and affection to the minor children of the deceased. (2) We do not find any merit in the first contention. Though gross salary of the deceased was 'Rs. 7861/—, after permissible deductions, such as DPF, GIS etc., the home taking salary of the deceased was Rs. 5627/- only and the MACT has deducted 1/3” of the said sum towards personal expenses of the deceased and thereby the actual loss of monthly dependency was only Rs. 3751.34 Paise. The deceased was aged 45 years on the date of accident and therefore, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is 15. Thus, total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 7,31 ,51 1 .3 Paise (3751 .34 X 13x1 5) and that sum has rightly been awarded By.the MACT towards loss of dependency. We were told that police personnel get 13 months salary in a year, 1 month's salary as an incentive. @ (3) However, we find sum considerabie force in the remaining 1 ' contentions of the learned counsel for the appeliants. As we often held and reiterated that even compensation to be awarded under the conventional‘heads should reflect time and place and the steep fall in the money value in recent year and it cannot be shtic for all the years to come. In that view of the matter. we award a sum of Rs. 20,000l- towards loss of consortium to the' widow of the deceased, Rs. 20,000/- towards ‘t - gloss l of love and affection to the minor Children and another sum of Rs. 2D;QDO/- towards loss of esmte. The impugned award shall stand modified ' l gin the above terms. In all other respects, the impugned award shall l remain unaltered. No costs. gi,l#., ‘ a sdl- __L Sdl- .L; i; Dmp Raosaheb V Chief Justice; Deshmukh Judge