@ HIGH COURT OF JUDIgTQBEgHHATTIHSGARH: BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI SR. NAYAK, CJ 8: HON’BLE SHRI DR. DESHMUKH, J. MA. No.39$ of 2006 CLAIMANTS years, Widow of $ukhbir Singh, Occupation Housewife. 2. Gagandip, Aged about 17 years. Mincr, D/o Late Sukhbir singh 3. Gurudarshan Singh, Aged about 16 years, Minor, Dio Late Sukhbir Singh Appellant No. 2 & 3 are Minor, Represented through their mother Smt. Jasvindar Kaur, Appellant No.1 Ail Rio House No. 789, Sector 4, Udaya Society, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Latesh Kumar, Son of Jagat Ram NQN-APPLICANTS Sonloirse, Occupation — Driver, Rio Mohaba Bazar, P.S. Aamanaka, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Radhe Shyam Ratre (Datt) S/o. Late Gonduji Ratre, Occupation — Owner of the vehicle, Rio House No. G-l, Bagh Colony, Jaysthambh Chowk. P.S. Balaghat, Tahsil & District Balaghat (MR) 3. The National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office — Balaghat, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office — Mobin Mahal, GE. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Present: Shri Ashok Soni, learned counsel for the appellants. The following oral order of the Court was passed by SR. NAYAK, CJ . The dependents of the deceased, feeiing aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the M.A.C>.T. and seeking more compensation, have preferred this appeal. ORAL ORDER gPassed on 24m August, 2006). APPLICANTS 1. Smt. Jasvindar Kaur, Aged about 42 <@ ~2_ (2) We have heard Iearned counse! for ihe appeuams. it was first ccntended by learned counse! for the appeHants that the MACT is not justified in taking the annuat income ef the deceased @ Rs. 87,000/~ for the purpose of computing toss of dependency. It was next contended by learned counsel for the I ‘K’u appelkmts that what has been awarded under the conventional heads ‘is on lower side. We do not find any merit in the first contention. The income tax return tiled by the deceased during the assessment year 2004—05 was produced and marked as Ex. P/1. The original records of the MACT are made available to us. We have perused the same. As per the return, the aggregate annual income of the deceased was only Rs. 87030/—. The MACT without any deductions took that income as the annual income of the deceased for computing loss of dependency. The contention is that in the oral evidence of Claimant No.1. she stated that the deceased was earning annual income of Rs. 6,63,900/—. This claim cannot be countenanced in the absence of any substantive legal evidence to support that plea. The self-serving statement of the first claimant cannot be accepted as true, particularly, in View of Ex. P/’l . Therefore. we do not find any merit in the first contention. (3) The MACT has awarded Rs. 10.00% towards loss of love and affection to the children, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow, Rs. 10,000!- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. in the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the totality of the circumstances and also the total compensation of Rs. 7,81 ,000/- awarded by the MACT, we are of the considered opinion that what is awarded is just and reasonable compensation and the appellants are not entitled to seek a enhancement of the compensation. The appeal is devoid of men't and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ‘ Sd-/ Sd/~ Chief Justice 1 Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge L, 94M?“