EjiCaH CQQRJ‘ Of JUDJCATURE CtlHAgTJ'ISGgRHm: §ILA$EUR DIVISION BENdH How’aLE sHRI SIR. NAYAK, c.J. HQN’aLE sHRI QR. DEsI-IMLIKH, .J. MA. No. 14 OF £006 AHEEEJ-J-ADLE APPLICANT3 1. Jainuddin‘, aged abaut 49 years, 9son 0f Seikh Chhotemiyan. 3mt. Noorjahan aged about 44 years, wife of Jainuddin ’ Both aregresident of viuage Podi, Tahsii anti Distt. Kawardha (C.G.), presently resided at Magarpara, Biiaspur’(CG) Vgrsus RE§P9NDENT§ 1. Jaikaran @ Jairam Gujar, .NGN-APPLICANT§ Aged about 34‘years, son of Shri Ramasare’ Gujar, resident ' of Bhatthipura, Mohalla Jhansi Road (Near Tata Agency) Chhafarpur, P.S. .Tarnalganj, Diett. Chhatarpur (Driver Truck Ne. MP 16/H/001 3O Parmanand Ahuja, S/o. Late P.D. Ahuja, resident of Mahoba Road, Distt. Chhattarpur (MP) “insurance Company, Branch Manager, The New India insurance Co. Limited, Jawahar Marg, Chhatarpur, ihrough — New lndia insurance Company Limited, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) - Preeent : Ms‘. Bhagwati Kas‘hyap, learned counsel for the applicants. (ORAL ORDER) (Passed on 14‘“ February, 200$) The foiiowing order of the Court wee passed by SR. Nayak, Cd. in this appeal preferred by the dependants of the deceased seeking more ‘eompensetion, what was centended by learned counsel for the -;,/ appellams is that the MACT is not ju$tifled in tgking the annua! income of the f deceased at notional rate of Rs.15,000/-, Hiwas also Contended that the MAQT has not apptied appmpriate mumplier to assess loss of dependency. We do not fmd any merit in both the oontentionfs. Though, it was claimed that the deceased was earning monthly incomeof Rs.3,000/— by doing cycle repairs, to substantiate that. plea and incomfe, no evidence is laid by the claimants —- appellants before the MACH. lnf the absence of any evidence whateoever, we do not think that the MACT has committed any illegality in taking the annual income of the deceased at notional rate of Rs.15_,000!*. The second contention is also devoid of merit. On the date of the accident, the first appellant, father of the. deceased was aged 49 years and the second appellant, mother of the deceased was aged 44 years. The average age of the two appellants would come to 46,5 years. ln the circumstance, the MACT ought to have applied multiplier 13, but, it has appiied multiplier 15 to the advantage of the appellants. The contention that the MACT ought to r have determined appropriate multiplier taking into account the age of the deceased and not the age of the'parents of the deceased is not acceptable to us nor it is in consonance with the settled position of law. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Noycosts. v % . Mam“ I» t l Judge _ / i , , \ l c \/\ I i » I Chief Sd/ Justice - ‘' \ \ D‘hP ..' Raosaheb SM Deshmuk ‘ i . i l h ‘