IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA. NO. 1439/2005 / CORAM : Hon‘ble Shri 5.R.Nayak, Chief Jusfice & Hon‘ble Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, Judge \ é AppeHan'rs -1. Abdul Hafeez, 5/0 Shri Abdul Zafar', Claimants aged abouf 40 years -2. Ruksana Begum, D/o 5hri Abdul Hafeez, aged abouf 17 year's, -3. Afsam Begum, D/o 5hrl Abdul Hafeez, ‘ aged abouf 14 year's -4. Rehana Begum, D/o Shri Abdul Hafeez, aged abouf O6 year's ‘ Mohd. Anish, S/o 5hri Abdul Hafeez, aged about 04 years. Appellan‘rs No. 2 To 5 are Minor, Through fheir natural guardian Fa‘lher Shri Abdul Hafeez, aged ‘abouf 4O years, Occupa'rion Agriculture and Sewing. All Cas‘res Musalman, and Residen‘r of Village Palma, Police Chouki Bha‘igaon, Police Sia‘i'ion Prafappur, DisT‘l'. Surguja (CG) i VERSUS 01. Ji‘i'endra Kumar Agrawal Son of 5hri Gujanand Agrawal, Vehicle Owner, Residenf of Main Road, Surajpur, \ Dis‘i’ricf—Sarguja (C.6.) \ GWNER or VEHICLE 02\.\ Ramdeo Son of Shri Sampa‘i' Ram Dhobi, \ Occupa'rion Driver, Residen‘r of Village \Singri, Police S‘i'a‘l'ion and Tahsil- P\ra‘rappur, Dis‘rricf-Sarguja (C.G.). DRIVER t \ \ \v QESPONDENT5 \ \‘ \ O3. The Orien‘ml Insurance Company Limi‘l'ed, Through: The Branch Manager, O.I.C.L. Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, Disfr-id-Sar'guja (C.6.) INSURER Shri Sushil Dubey, learned Counsel for the appellants. 5hri Ali Asgar, Counsel assisTing Shri Prashanf Jaiswal, Senior counsel for The respondem' No.3. j} ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18+“ January, 2006) The Following order of 1he Cour'l’ was passed by S.R.NAYAK, C.J. 1. While seeking more compensa'fion, learned counsel for ‘rhe appellamvwould contend 1-ha'l' the M.A.C.T. was not justified in taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- . Secondly. it was contended that having regard to the age of the deceased on the date of accident, the M.A.C.T. has applied wrong multiplier. 2. We do not find any merit in the first contention. Though it is the case of the claimants that the deceased was a tailor and earning Rs.150/— per day or Rs‘4,500/- per month, to substantiate that claim, no acceptable legal evidence was laid before the MALT. In the absence of any evidence, but, having regard to the vocation of the deceased, the MA.C.T., according to us, quite rightly took the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month for assessing loss of dependency. 3. V We, however, find force in the second contention. The Tribunal has opined that the age of the deceased on the date of accident was 35 years. In that View of the matter, it ought to have applied multiplier 17 instead of multiplier 15 for assessing loss of . dependency in *erms of second schedute. If we app!y mulfiplier 17, Tofu! loss of dependency would come To Rs.4,08,000/—. 4. In Thaf View of The ma‘H’er, we award sum of Rs.4,08,000/— Towards loss of dependency. The impugned order shall stand modified in fhe above farms. In all oTher respec‘rs, 1‘he impugned {TUuM bear Their respecfive cosfs. i y l l l l l l Sd/— CHIEF JUSTICE l order shall sfand unal'rered. 5. The appeal is allowed To lhe above extent The party shall R Sd/u AHEB DESHMUKH ‘ 1 ‘ DILIP RAos Judge x