iiiH''ni]'!"'ini]'- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR (DtVISION BENCHt CORAM: Hon'bte Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. WA. No. 840 OF 2006 APPELLANTS/CtAIMANTS Ws^ 1) Godavari Bal Wd/o. Dhaniram Pradhan, Aged about 38 yeare. 2) Surujbai, W/o. Chhedital Pradhan, Aged about ®)years. 3) Rajesh Kumar, S/o. Late Dhaniram Pradhan, Aged about 20 yeare 4) Ku. Ranu, D/o. L^te Dhaniram Pradhan, Aged about 15 years, Minor Through: Guardian-Mother Godavari Bai, Wd./o. Dhaniram Pradhan All are R/o. Deorikurd, Powerhouse Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/NON- APPI-ICANTS Versus 15 2) Mahadev Sahu, S/o. Manbodh Sahu, Aged about 32 years, Occupation : Driver and Owner of the Vehicle, Hindustan Tracker No. MP-26-E/8617, R/o. Sankara, District: Raigarh (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Sambalpur (Orissa) Present: Mr. Saurabh Sharma, leamed counsel forthe appeltants. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, teamed Standing counsel for respondent No.2. ORALORDER (Passed on 12"* of December 2005) The following Order of the Court was passed by S.R. Nayak, CJ: The appellants are dependents of the deceased. They have filed this appea! for more compensation. Leamed counset for the appeltant -2.- while seeking for more compensation woutd contend (i) that though the MACT has held that on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 40-45 years, instead of applying multiplier 15 it wrongly applied multiptier 14 for assessing loss of dependency, (ii) that the monthly income of the dec^sed on the date of accident as rrflected in Ex.A-10 was Rs.8,367/-, whereas the MACT has taken his monthly income at Rs. 5,500/- for assessing loss of dependency, which is erroneous and (iii) that the MACT has not taken into account the prospects of deceassd earning more income if he were to alive in due course. 2. Since the deceased, even according to ttie MACT, was aged 40-45 years on ths date of accident, the MACT ought to have applied muitiplier 15 and not multiplier 14. The MACT has not committed any error in deducting the contribution made by the deceased towards payment of Income Tax, Provident Fund and other dues from ttie gross income, because they are permissibte heads of deductions. Therefore, we do not flnd any merit in the second contention. However, ws find some force in the last contention of Uie leamed counsel that the MACT ought to have taken the prospect of the cteceased eaming more money, if he were to ath/e. We say this, because, it has come in the evidence of A.W.-2 that if the deceased were to alwe, he would have eamed Rs. 600/- more every year. Perhaps, he would have also eamed some promotion before his retirement on attaining the age of superannuadon. tn that view <rf the matter, we ttiink it just and reasonaMe to take the net loss of monttily dependency in a sum of Rs. 6,000/-. If we take the monthty toss of dependency in a sum of Rs. 6,000/- and deduct 1/3ri towards peraonal expenses of the deceased, the actual toss of monthly dependency would (/^ -"><- !fiB Msteife p^l~, come to Rs. 4,000/-. If we apply muttiplier 15, the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 7,20,000/- (4,000 x 12x15). We are also of the considered opinion that what has been awarded towards loss of consortium to the widow and loss of love and affection to the minor daughter is very much on lower side. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the widow of the deceased towards toss of consortium and another sum of Rs. 20.000/- tovi/ards loss of love and affection to the minor female chi'd. !n the resutt and for the fcregoing reasons we allow the appeal in part and in substitution of the impugned award, we award total compensation of Rs. 7,62,000/- under the foltowing heads.: (i) (") •iii) toss of dependency loss of consortium ioss of love & affection funeral expenses Rs. 7,20,000/- Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 2.000/- Total Rs. 7,62,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The parties shall bear their respective costs in this appeal. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- - Chief Justice c.^'^