°>.1' COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : 'vd. HON'BLE SHRI D.R. DESHMUKH. J (Oi-iverj (Owner) (Ciaimants) Wiai- National insurance Company Limited, Through Assistant Manager, National Insurance Company Limited,. B-1, Taha Complex, Ist Ftoor, Ring Road, Priyadarshini Nagar, Biiaspur, (Chhattisgarh). Versus Rajkishore Prasad,; S/o. Girja Prasad, R/'o. 7 No. Gudipara Road, Koikatta 15 (West BengaS) Rajeshwar Ral, S/o. D.L. Rai, R/o. 31 Coal Depot Siyalda, Koikatta ^ R^rtrsi^l^ <;! 4. Sumitra Bai, Wife of iate Shankar Yadav, aged about 30 years, Ku. Saraswati Yadsv, D/o. iate Shankar Yadav, aged about 1; 6. Ku. Janki Yadav, D/o. iate Shankar Yadav, aged about 12 years. Puran Yadav, S/o. Kaushik Yadav, aged about 55 years, Parvafi Yadav, wifs of Puran Yadav, agea' about 50 years. Respondents No.4 & 5 belng Mlnors are represented throush Mother Respondent No.3 to 7 Residents of Viilage Jora, Po'ice Station Telibandha, Ralpur, (Chhattisgarh) presentiy residing at Viliage Bslsonda, Poiice Station and TahsiS Mahasamund, (Chhattlsgarh) resent: Shri Sanjay K. Agrs.wai, learned counsel for the peilant. ^S^Lfl f^n aiT w WEI -few s-EwijE^, feVvV The fo!lowing orat order of the Court was passed by f^.l 1 •2-' in this appeal prsferred by the National insurance Company Limited assaiiing the impugned award, the oniy ground urged by the iearned standing counse! for it is that while assessing the loss of dependency, the MACT was not justffied in taking the gross total Income of the deceased. According to the iearned standmg counsei, ths K4ACT ought to have deducted the expendlture incurred by the deceased in runn'ng the dairy- farm. 2. We do not find any merit in the sbovs contention of the iearned standing counsel for t'ne Insurance Cornpany. !n the income tax return Tiled by the deceased during ths reievant year, his egtimatsd income from dair^'-farm .business is shown at Rs.68,700/-, and to that, a sum of Rs.6,SOO/- is added 'oeing "petty interest and other income". Out of Rs.75,300/-, tota! income ofthe deceased, the MACT has deducted a sum of Rs.25,100/-, being 1i'3rc! of the totai Income towards personai expenditure of the deceased and computed 'oss of dependency. Although, ths appeliant-insurance Company has sought permission before the MACT under Section 1 70(b) of the Motor Vehictes Act, it 'nad uttsrly failed to adduce any evidence to show the expenditure incurred by him for running the dairi'-farm. The award passed by ths MACT is just and reasonable and It does not ca!l for any interference. The appeal Is, therefore, dlsmissed. Chief Justice Sd/- DiUpRaosahebDeshmukh Judge 9