@ ‘VA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$6ARH AT BILASPUR Misc.Appaal No.894of 2005 CORAM'. Hon’ble Shi‘i SR. Nuyak, CJ & Hon'ble. Shri Dilip Raosahep Deshmukh, J’ Shri K.K. Singh‘ Counsei for The uppeHam. Shri Srikumar Agrawal. Counsel for responden‘r No.3. & . ORAL ORDER (Passed on 2“ January 2006) The foilowing oral order of 141a Courf was passed by 5.R.NAVAK, CJ. 1. In This appeal N'p'kreferred by fha claimonf for more compensa'rion, The following are The fwo grounds urged in supporf of fhe appeal: #Appeilam” . Shravun Kumar Yaduv, s/o Ia‘re Shri Clamain‘r Bandhan Ram Vadav, aged abouf 25 years, R/o Pumni BasTi, Kafghom, g Tahsil - Kafghom, Dis‘rric‘r-Korba (6.6.) a , Varsus Respondzn’r . 1. Shri Ganesh Ram Rafhere, Driver: 5/0 Shri Rambharose, aged abou‘i‘ 26 year‘s, Rio ViHage—Jhumu Chowky- Baradwaré AT presem' R/o Darri Fe‘h‘ilizer, Police Smfion Darri, Disfric? Korba (C.G.) Responden‘r 2.3hri Sa'rish Kumar- Laxman, 5/0 Shri Owner Luxmun, Rio Quam‘er No.909, Seci'or- 5, Balco Nagar, Dis‘H'. Korba (66.) Qespondenf . 3. Unifed India Insurance Company Insuranca Company Lfd., Branch Office, Mdedhekar Complex, Rajendra Nagar Bilaspur (C.G.) wax- i. Thaf The Mo+or Acciden‘l’s Claims Tribunal is nm‘ jusfified in faking fhe age of fhe deceased on The dafe 0f The accidem‘ as 50 years and in fad The age of The deceased was 47 - 48 years. ii. Thaf even accep'?ing fhe age of the deceased as 5O years on The da‘i'e 0f The accident even Then, The M.A.C.T. oughT To have applied muITiplier 13 ins-read of 12 for assessing The ioss of dependency. These are The oniy Two grounds urged by The ieamed counsei for The appellant 2. We do noT find any ’meriT in The firsT conTenTion urged by The leaF’héd counsel for The appellant The oral evidence adduced in The case To which reference is made by The M.A.C.T. in paragraph 18 would go To ‘show ThaTdhere is no consisTency in The oral evidence of The wiTnesses wiTh regard To The age of The deceased. IT varied from 47 e 48 years To 60 — 65 years. In The premise, according To us, The M.A.C.T. quiTe righTly has made a guess work and Taken The age of The deceased as 50 years. 3. We, however, find The force in The second conTenTion of The learned counsel for The appellant Even Taking The age of The deceased on The daTe of The accidenT as 50 years, in Terms of The second schedule, The appropriaTe mulTiplier To be applied for assessing The loss of dependency is mulTiplier 13 and noT mulTiplier 12 as has been done by The M’A.C.T. If we apply mulTiplier 13k The ToTal loss of dependency would come To Rs.2,23,600/— (17,200 x t3). 4. In The resulT and for The foregoing reasons, we allow The appeal ’in parT and we award a sum of Rs.2,23,600/— Towards loss of dependency The impugned award shall sTand modified accordingly. In all oTher respecTs, The impugned award shall sTancl unalTered. No cosTs. ”f” sal- Chief Justice' E Sw- Dilip RaoSaheb Deshmukh H Judge . HI