mGH CQCRt OF CmiATTISGARHAlLBJLASFUR jytAJNo.nssaoos CORAM : Hon'ble Shri S.R.Nwak, ChiefJustice & Hon'ble Sliri.Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukfa, Judge iif ll'i' Appellant Non-Applicant No.3 Respondent No. 1 Applicant svl Resoondent No. 2 Non-ApplicantNo. 1 Resiiondent No. 3 Non-ApplieantNO.2 Branch Manager, National fiisurance Company, Branch-1 Naveen Bazar, G.E. Road, tlnuugh the Divisional Manager, Divisiorial QEBce, Bilaspur Branch, Near-Gazibo Hotel, Taha Complex, Vyapar Vihw Road, Bilaspur VERSUS (a) NimialaRawate, W/o Late Toran Rawate, Aged about'20 yeara, R/o Sirsakala, Post-Sirsakala, BlulaiEas^P.S.Blulai-3, Distt.r>ufg(Chhattisgarh) (b) Nea^jRawate, Si'oLate Toran Rawate, Agsd ateout 26idayg (Minor) Throu^i Natural Gaurdian-MoAer Ninnala .Rawate,? •.;:1':1. , , . - ' ;. - ly&Sirsattala.Post-Susakala, Blfflai East, F.S. BhiN-3, 3E»stt;@iug(Ciihattisgarii) (c) Siflsturanl, S/io Tijauram, aged about 70 years, lyo'KiUage-Ouma, P.S. Uila, Tehsfl andOistt. RiupurtGG) (d) SmtBucBuaBai, W%Sulihuam, %ed about 65 years, R/o Village-Guma, F.S. Uria, TehsU and Distt. Raipur(CG); " Sl)y<un Kumar Verma, S/o Loknath Piasad Venna, i ^ed about 42 yea»> : . R/o todhipara, Raipur (CG) OaJsar Sin^i (Vehiele Owner)| ThfOU^i Mata Garrage, Pandari, Raipur(CG) Present:- ShnN.K. Agarw^ SeniprA3yocatewi{h;Slni| coimsel forlthe appeUMtt-Iiuurance Company. Qamarul Aziz, d^& <1 ^' I - e- ORALORDER (Passed on 30 .lanuary, 2006) The Followmg prder ofthe Coiut was passed by S.R.NAYAK, C.3. 1. ]h this appeal preferred by Ifae Insurance Compaay, the only ground urged by the leamed counsel for the appeUant is that though admittedly the deeeased was eaming montMy incbme of Rs. 2,250/- per month as office boy m a private school, the M.A.C.T. has taken his monthly income as Rs.4,500/- for assessing loss of dependency and ttris error comautted by the M.A.C.T. is substantial in nature. 2. The M.A.C.T. hawing regard to the age ofthe deceased on the date of the accident and lus prospect of eaming, more income in fiitare years and placing reUance on the judgment oftfaeHi^i Court in the case of General Maiiaeer. K.S.R.T.C. ^s. Sushmcf Thomas reported in 1994 ACJ 01. 1994 (1) T.A.C (S.C), has taken the mpndify income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month aid having dediicted one-tfaird of the same towards personal expenses of deceased, has coinputed actoal toss af dependenpy by appiying multiplier 18. The deeeased left behind Irim a young widow, nunor son and both-die parents. The facts aad cireumstances of the case are such'that we should not interfere wifh Ae impugned award. What is awarded by M.A.C.T., in our considered opinioa, is just and reasonatile witfainlfaecontempIationoftheMotorVehicle Act, 1988. There is no faUare ofjustice. "' 3. Noground ismade out. Theappealisdismissed.Nqeosts. Chief Justtce f' Sdl- Dilip Raosaheb beshmukh Judge