DIVISION BENCH Smt. Nirmala Bai, W/o. Tilendra Kumar Shrivastava, Aged about 44 years, Both R/o. Gurucharan Nagar FaTadih, P.S. Gangai, Raipur (C.G.) OWNER fNSURER 1. Kirtan Gorandi, S/o Kariys.Gorandi Aged 40 years, R/o. Gandhi Nagar District Balangir (Orissa) At present Hora Travels, New Bus Stand, P.S. Civil Line, Raipur. 2. Nareshchandra Pati, S/o Rameshwar Pati, R/o Rameshwar Nagar BaSangir (Orissa) 3. The Orienta! Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager Divisional Office, D.0. 2 Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Present: Mr. Abhay Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Vinay Harit, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. Narayan Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.3. w The following oral order of the Court was passed by Originally, this appeal was preferred by both the parents of the seeking more compensation. During the pendency of the -^. Blltttfji. appeal, first appellant - father died and Smt. Nirmala Bai who was arrayed as second appellant initially has become the sole appe!lant. (2) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was earning his livelihood by opening a Kirana Shop in Raipur city and he was earning roughiy Rs,4,000 - 4,500/- per month out of his avocation ind therefore, the learned MACT is not justified in taking the income of the deceased at the notional rate of Rs.15,000/- per annum for issessing loss of dependency. Learned counsel for the appellant would also contend that the MACT is not justified in not awarding any compensation under the conventional heads and towards funeral (3) Before the MACT, the father of the deceased was examined as PW-1 and in his deposition he stated that his son had a Kirana Shop and he was earning monthly income of Rs.4,000 - 4,500/-. Ofcourse, the testimony of PW-1 is self-interested testimony and therefore, much credence could not be given to such testimony. But, the fact remains that the deceased was earning his livelihood in a city !ike Raipur at the relevant point of time and had to support his father and mother. Therefore, such a man earning monthly income of atleast te.2,500 - 3,000;'- could not be ruled out and could not be regarded as something speculative or hypothetic. Therefore, we tend to take the monthly income of the deceased for'-ttie purpose.of assessing loss of dependency at Rs.2,500/-. On the date of accident and demise of the son, the mother was aged 42 years and, therefore, appropriate multiplier to be applied for assessing loss of dependency would be multipiier i5. -3- li^ deduct half of the income of the deceased towards personal ises of the deceased, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.1,250/- x 12 x 15). !n a death case, loss of iove and and 'loss of estate' are the conventional heads under which the sation is required to be awarded. Furthermore, even the funeral incurred by the family of the deceased should be reasonably In that view of the matter, we award a sum of ,000/- towards loss of iove and affection and Rs.20,000/- towards !oss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. (4) In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal in part and in substitution of the impugned award, we award a of Rs.2,70,000/- under the following heads : (i) Loss of dependency (ii) Loss of love and affection (iii) Loss of estate (iv) Funeral expenses Total Rs.2,25,000/- Rs. 20.000/- Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Rs.2,70,000/- iia:jaiiBi, interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition til! ayment. The insurance company shall deposit the balance of the isation before the MACT within a period of six weeks from today. such deposit being made, the MACT shall deposit 50% of the »ensationwith interest accrued thereon in any nationalized bank or posta! savings account, initially for a period of 5 years and rest of the be paid to the claimant - mother. Parties shall bear their ispective costs in this appeal. T' 0 Sd/- " Chief Justice Sdf- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge