HIQH CO'URT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI D.R. DESHMUKHrJ. I.A. N0.1198 OF 2005 [CLAIMANTS} K 1. 2.. Versys tESRONDENTS 1 2. 3. Abdul Rauf Khan S/o Haji Khalil Aged about 56 years Smt. Ayasha Begum W/oAbdulRaufKhan, Aged about 54 years Rukhsana Begum D/o Abdul Rauf Khan Aged about 18years All R/o Motitalab Jagdalpur, Dist: Bastar (C.G.) Jitendra Kumar Mishra S/o Late KripiaShankar Mishra Aged about 35 years, R/oNearShivShakti Provision stores Pratapganj Para Jagdalpur, Distt. B^star (C.G.) Sanju @ Sanjay Kumar Mjshra S/o Kripa ShankarMishra, Aged about 40 years, R/o Pratapganj Para Jagdalpur, Dist: Bastar (C.G.) TheOriental Insurance CompanyLtd. | Branch Office.Jagdalpur, Dist: Bastar (C.G.) Plgssot : Shri Prafult Bharat, leamed counsel for the appetlant. (ORAL ORDER} {Passed on 1-§tt February, The fcllowing order of the Cpurt was passed by [iU:r }f r liS^^.iiiiSsi^&iS^KE^?^ a!tt& ^ •r ss' l:illSli11 lAi# In this appea! preferred by the tegal representatives of the deceased seeking more compensation, what was urged before us is that the MACT is notjustified in applying multiplier 14forassessing loss of dependency and that as perExhibit P/15 whteh is Income Tax retum filed in the name of the deceased, the annua! income of the deceased was Rs.48,245/-, whereas the Tribuna! has taken the annual income of the deceased only at Rs.36,000/-. -- (2) Having heard the tearned counse! for the appellants, we do hot find any merit in this appeal. The deceased was unmarried and tegal representatives are parents and a major sister. On the date of accident, father was aged 56 years , mother was aged 54 years and the sister was aged 18 years. If the MACT were to take into account the average age of the parents, appropriate multiplier to be applied for assessing loss of dependency would be multiplier 11 and notmultiplier 14. In-other words,the MACT has applied wrong multiplier to the advantage of the appellants: There is also no merit in the 2 contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. The MACT has referred to Ex.P/15, the Income Tax return filed by the appelfanfs in support of their claim, but, the MACT dicl not take that document into accoiint on the ground that the return"\vas not in the name of the deceased, and therefore, we cannot take any exception to the MACT in nottaking intoaccountthedocumentEx.P/15. Theappeal is devoid ofmerit ancliitisaccordinglydismjssed.Nocosts. j—^~-—'\ °"ipRaos^e ^NKi ^I:' N? K: I wy