‘ @ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR RAM -. HON BLE SHRI S R NAYAK éJ HON'BLE SHR! V K SHRIVASTAVA ’ CO J Whsc. Appeal ( C ) No.1 84 of 2006 APPELLANTS M 1‘ Smt Joodawatl Pandey aged about 46 ears W/o Mohan Pandey ; Shn Mohan Pandey aged about 5O years S/o Rambhua Pandey I Akhdesh Paney aged about 21> Years S/o Mohan Pandey Gyaneshwar Pandey aged abou 19 years S/o Mohan Pandey _ Rajeshwar Pandey aged about 16 years S/o Shn Mohan Pandey . Nageshwar Pandey aged about 14 years Shrl Mohan Pandey 7 Ku Anjall Pandey aged 12 years " S/o 8hr! Mohan Pandey SI No 5 to 7 Minor through Guardran other Smt arawatr Pande ‘ appellant No.1 m J y x H are Rio Vrllage Him Mrmes Thana Hrrrr Drst Briaspur (C G Versus RS f ESPONDENT : Krishna Kumar aged about 34 r years 'Sio Jagdesh Singh Jat Rio» Jharathi Thana Kharkhoda DistKonipat (Hariyana)(Driver Tenke / Triler No.H.R.63/D/4455) Devendra Singh raged about 41 years 8/0 Mahendra Singh i R/o Ho‘use No.39 Lovrarkhurd Tah BrGarh Distdhajhar ‘ (Hariyana) (Registered OWner of Mote'r Tenker Tir / rate No.H.Re3/Ng-4455) ' The New india‘xnsuranoe ;Company Through —’Branch Manager Branch Ofi'rce Tops of ' the laysher Truck Agenceres Near Bus Stand Bahadurgarh“ . DistJhajhar _, (Harryana)Through Branch 5 Manager The New Indra Insurance '“ CmLtd Rajendra Nager Ghowk Bilaspur (org ) -s ; : CLAIANT y ‘ wn a d . t A : r ‘ w . z‘ ,. l n PRESENT: Smt Renu Kochar, Counsel for 1 0 R A L O R D E R ( Dated 15‘ November,!2006) the Appellants. The following oral order of the Court was passed by S.R.Nayak, l CJ. : l The legal representatives of the ideceased have filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 2) The first contention of learned céaunsel for the appellants is that the MACT ought not to have deducted 2/3“ bf the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses for the purpose of computing loss of dependency. The second contention of learned counsel for the appellantsjs that the MACT has applied wrong multiplier of 13 for assessln‘g loss of dependency. The last t contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the deceased was earning monthly income of Rs.3,700/-, whereas, the MACT has wrongly taken the income of the deceased @ Rs.3,000!— per: month for assessing loss of dependency. 3) Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned award and other material papers laid before us, we do not find any merit in any of the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants. The deceased has left behind him mother, father, brothers and sister. There is no hard and fast rule that in each and every case of death, while computing loss of dependency, only 1/3” of the income of the deceased should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. lt all depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the dependency established by/the claimants on the income of the deceased person. lt is not as if the deceased was the only son of the parents. The parents have two more major sons and a daughter to support them. The parents have failed to adduce any substantive evidence before the MACT to show that the deceased was, in fact, spending‘onlyr‘lm'd of\ his income towards his personal expenses and contributing 2/3“ of h‘tsyincome to support the family. ln the absence of such material evidence, no exception could , . be taken to the award of the MACT in deducting 2/3“ income of the deceased f sx i l i l ~‘_ ' Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge towards his personal expenses and hoiding that he was contributing only 11’3’” of _ ‘i his income to support the family. 4) The second contention of learned oounsei for the appellants is untenable since the legal representatives are the parents, major brothers and sister. The MACT has rightly taken the average ;age of parents for determining appropriate multiplier for the purpose of computinégloss of dependency, On the date of the accident, the age of the mother was 4:6 years and the age of father was 50 years, and the average age of the parentéa would come to 48 years and, therefore, the MACT has rightly applied multiplier 13 for assessing loss of dependency. We do not find merit in the third contention of learned counsel of i l i i r;H i _ the appellants also. ln support of the ingome df the deceased, the claimants themselves have produced a certificate to shéw that he was earning only Rs.2,000/— as income per month, Nevertheless, the MACT having regard to the fact that the deceased was working as Security (Guard has taken the income of ' the deceased @ Rs.3,000l- month for assessing: loss pf dependency. There is no substantive evidence adduced by’the appella§nts to show that the deceased, in fact, was earning monthly income of Rs.3,7DQ/-. No other points are urged ‘ before us by learned counsel for the appellantsj The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. l (“‘1 : . . Sd/- Chief Justice "Js/h J.—