HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH t BILASPUR iDlVlSlON BENCH) CORAM : Hon’ble Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ‘APPELLANTS 1 V CLAHMANTS Versus RESPONDENTS 1 . NON-CLAIMANTS Manaram S/o Bishalram Patel, aged about 45 years, Resident of - New Khursipar (Wrongly mentioned Khursipal), Bhitai, District - Durg (C.G.) (Driver of Truck bearing registration No. C.G. ~07/ZC 1757) Smt. Gouri W/o Rajendra Jain, aged about 43 years, Resident of - Behind Panda Brothers, Vasundhra Nagar, Bhilai -3, District - Durg (C.G.) Narad KumaeS/o Noharlal Sahu, aged about 30 years, R/o - Lodhipara, Pandri, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Virendra Kumar Maini g S/o SP. Maini, Through RB. Shukla, Rairu DistiHery, Gwalior, District - Gwalior (MR) The National 'lnsurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Office, Beside of Lalganga Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur, District — Raipur (C.G.) (insurer of both vehicle) Misc. Appeal No. 531 OF 2005 Smt. Manju Thakur, W/o Late Vijay Singh Thakur. aged about 47 years Ajay Thakur, S/o Late Vijay singh Thakur, aged about 26 years. Smt. Kishorimani Wlo Purnachand, aged about 71 years AII the resident of - Coubey Colony Raipur, District -Raipur (CG) . h C2? Present: Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants’ Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.5/ In$urance Company. ORAL 01mm (Passed or} 2"a of Deiember zoos) ;w The following Order of the Court was passed by SR. Nayak, CJ: t “‘The claimants in a death case not being satiskd with the compensation awarded by the MACT have preferred this appeal for more compensation. lt.was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has applied wrong multiplier in assessing loss of dependency. It was pointed out that though as per postmortem report, the age of the deceased was shown as 45 years, the wife of the deceased in her deposition stated that the deceased was 52 years of age and that even taking the age of the deceased as 52 years. appropriate multiplier would have been 11 and not 10. lt was also contented by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has erred seriously in law in awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000I- under all conventional heads and it ought to have awarded compensation separately under conventignal heads such as ‘loss of consortium', ‘loss of love and affection', .loss . to estate’ and funeral expenses, We also heard. Mr. Sanjay K Agrawal, learned standing counsel for the insurance Company on merit. ' (2) We are of the considered opinion that the appropriate multiplier to be applied for assessment ottoss of dependency is 11 and not 10. The deceased was 52 years of age on the date of the accident, therefore, the appropriate multiplier is 11. lf we apply multiplier 11, toss of dependency woutd come to Rs. 2,64,000/-, We also award Rs. 20,000/- towards loss C2? of consortium in favour of the widow, Rs. 20.000/- towards loss of love and affection in favour of minor chiid, Rs. 20,0001- towards toss to estate and O Rs. 5,000l~ towards funerai expenses. .(3) in the resuit, we allow the appeal in part and in substitution of the impugned award, We award total compensation of Rs. 3,29,000/— under lthe following heads:- 4: with interest @ 6% from the date of claim petition till payment. The Insurance Company shalt deposit the balance compensation money within a period of one month from today. The MACT shall deposit Rs. 1,50,000l- in any Nationalized Bank or Postal Savings Account whichever earns more interest initially for a period of three years. ln the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs. Sdl- 5di- Satish K. Agnihotri Chief Justice Judge (l) Loss of dependency Rs. 2,64,000/~ (ll) Loss to estate Rs. 20,000!- (lll) Loss of consortium Rs. 20,000/— (IV) Loss of love and affection Rs. 20,000]- (V) Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 3,29,000/-