\l HIGH $0URT 0f”)!UQ$£TUR§§&HATI§§GAR_H ; QELASEga DlVl$IQN BENgi-i CAM : ' HON’BLE SHRI SR. NAYAK§ C.J. HQN’BLE SHR! DR. DE$HMUKH, J. NLA. NO. 1356 OF 2005 gfjElANT National Insurance Company gmbwf§n5LICANT Limi'ied Thfough : Rs Divisional N@,3&4g Manager, Divisional Office‘ GE. ' Road, Babla Complex, - Raipur (CG) i l REsPONDEMTs (€9EL1§ANLN,,§A l ‘x Versus 1, Smt. Santoshi Devi Agrawal Wfo Laie Ram Kumar Agrawal, l aged -— 45 years. gNgPLiggN: Neg; 2. Mahavir Agrawal Sfo Late Ram Kumar Agrawal, aged —- 27 years. Dharam Agrawal 8/0 Late Ram Kumar Agrawal, aged 25 years. All are R/o —' Village-Ghess, P.S. Melchhamuncia, Distt. Bargarh, (Orisa). Darshan Singh S/o Kaitar Singh, ageél 52 years, Rio Near Jivan Garage, Maudahapara, Raipur, (C.G.) At nresent- Orisa Frate Carrier, Transpert Nagar, Nagpur (Maharasira). Charanjit Singh Sic Babu Singh Rte Orisa Frate Carrier, GE. Road, Tati Bandh Raipur (CG). iA-IELLQANLALQé). 3- l l {New APPLIcANT rim; ,rN'QN- APPLIQANT No.2) l Prlesent : Shri Daahrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. (ORAL onoER) (Passed cm 14‘“ February, 2096) The following order of the Court was passed by i i l l l i SIR. Nayak, Gd. in this appeal preferred by the tnsurance Company, what was urged by: the learned standing counsel for the lnsurance Company ts that the MACT is lnottustified in taking the annual income of the deceaeed at Rs.88,094/— on is W l‘. l l i l l l l l l l l l GR El #1.. thg basis 9f the lncame Tax return filed by the deceased during th a aessment year 2003-2004, whereas the acCident had takqn place 9n 2@.G2.2005. The second ground urged by the learned standing counse! is th t omy the first claimant, the widew ef the deceased was dependent on the income cf the deceased and therefore, in assessing less of dependencyi the MACT eught to have deducted 50% of the inceme of the deceaeed towards his personal expenses. whereas it has deducted only 1/3” of the ineeme 0f the deceased towards personal expenses. We do not Find any merit in either of the two contentione. {2)’ The deceased wee a businessman in textiles and in nermal l t 4 i coliree, his annual income would have been mere if he were te alive. in that vie’iv ef the matter, we cannot take any exception te the imeugned award. The deceased ieft behind him not enly his widow, but also two sons. Qt eodree: the sens are majere. There is absolutely n0 satisfactory evidence adduced by the lneuranee Company to 'show that the eons were not at all dependents en the income of the deceased. Be that as it may, the discretien exercised by the iearned MACT in deducting enly 1/3rd of the income ftom the ineome of the deceased tewatds his personal expenses, in the facts and ' eitdumsta‘nces cf the case, couid not be faulted with on‘any rationa! basis, The appeal is deveid of merit and it ts accordingiy dismissed. No casts, i 1i V t ‘, { . ledd” l e i : Sd/- i JUSTICE 4rrr.. i": Dilip Raosa Sd" heb cHIEF l Deshmukh Judge