@ HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. 1240 of 2005 Appellants 1. Smt. Rameshwari Bai, aged about 29 ycaxs, Wd/o Bhagitathi Sahu, Occupation- House wife. Chjh‘anjan Sahu, aged abouf 6 years, Minor child of Late Bhagixathi Sahu. Ku. Puja, aged about 14 years, Minor child of Late Bhagimthi Sahu. Chhannulal, aged about 14 yeaxs, Minor chiM of Late Bhagirathi Sahu. .Smt. Sonbati Bai, aged about 65 years, Wd/o Dauraram Sahu, Legal Iepresentative of the appellants No.3 2, 3 and 4 Smt. Rameshwali Bai, All are R/o Village- Kendn', P.S. Abhanpur, Tahsil and District- Raipux (C.G.). Vexsus Respondents 1. Barsati Ram Sahu, W/o Dhanram Sahu, R/ o Adarsh Nagar Jalghar Tikxapara, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The United India Insurance Company ’ i Ltd. Amar Complex Jeevan Bima Nigam Marg, Pandarji, Raipur (C.G.), Through — Divisional Manager, Divisional Odice, Kachahan' Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.). DB: Hon’ble Shri Justice S. R. Nayak, C.J. &. Hon’ble Shri Justice Satish K. Agm'hotxi, J. Mr. S. C. Verma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Sri Kumar Agaxwal, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (20th December 2005) The following order of the Court was passed by §. R. Kayak, C.J. This is a claimants’ appeal seeking more compensation. Although it was contended by Shri Verma, learned counsel for the appellants that the M.A.C.T. ought not to have taken the income of the deceased at the notional level, because, he was working as mason, . as per the evidence of the wife of the Adeceased, the contention is a (9‘ not acceptable to us, because, there is total lack of evidence to show that the deceased was a mason an‘d he was earning mom than What is taken as his income. It was next contended that what is awarded under the conventional heads is on lower side. As we said in laxge number of our oxders that the compensation to be awarded under the conventional heads should also mdect the time and place, particularly, in View of the steep fall in money value in \" recent years. In that View of the matter, we awald Rs. 20,000]- towards ‘loss of consortium’ to the Widow, Rs. 20,000/- towards ‘loss of love and adection’ to the minor children, Rs. 20,000]— towanis ‘loss to the estate’ and Rs. 5000/- towalds ‘funeral expenses’. 2. The impugned awaid shall stand modided in the above terms and in all other respects, the impummcd award shall remain unaltered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, both the parties are directed to bear their respecn‘ve costs in this appeal. ‘ 3d]. .» ’ /j Satlsh K. Agnlhotri g, “a “leggy/a f 7 j edi- K Chief Justice: Thakur