HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASpUR fDtVISION BENCH) CORAM : Hon'ble Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Misc. Appeal No. 962 OF 200S APPELLANTS CLAffiNfS" 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. RESPONDENTS 1, NON-APPLICANTS 2. 3. 4. 5. Santosht Das W/o Naresh Das, aged about 30 years Suraj Das S/o Naresh Das. aged about 12 years. Ku. Purnima D/o Naresh Das, aged about lOyears. Sanjay S/o Naresh Das, aged about 04 years. Ku. Sonam D/o Naresh Das, aged about 1 year, appellants no. 2 to 5 are represented by (egal guardian mother appelfant no. 1. all are R/o Behind Etectricity Office. P.S. Basana, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus Gautam Meshram S/o R. Meshram, age 40 years, C/o Gurpreet Singh Multani, S/o Kuhwant Singh Multani, R/o Tatibandh, G.E. Road Tahsjl & Distt. Raipour (C.G.) Gurupr^et Singh S/o Kulwant' Singh Muttani. aged 45 y^r, Tatibandh G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Smt Jasbeei^ Kaur W/o. Jaspal Singh Sarctar, R/o Tetghani Naka, G.E. Ro^d, Raipur (C.G.) Santosh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Kailash Chandra Agrawal, Aged 32 years, R/o Balajj Transport Main Road Basna, Dlstt. Mahasamund The National Insurance Company Limited, DJvision Office, Mobin Mahal. Second Ftoor G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) L-- Present: Mr. S.C. Verma, learned counsel for appeltants. Mr. Ali Asgar. learned counsel assisfa'ng Mr. Prashant Jayaswal, Sr. Advocate for respondent}slo. 5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15m of December 2005) —A' The following order ofthe courtwas passed by S.R. Nayak, CJ. The dependants of the decegsed have filed this appeal fior more compensation. Mr. Verma, tearned counsel for the appellants woutd contend that even taking the age of the deceased on the date of the accident as 45 years, as has been done by the M.A.C.T, the M.A.C.T ought to have applied multiplier 15 and not multiplier 11 for assessing loss of dependency. The contention is well founded. If the age of the deceased was 45 years as on the date of accident, as per second schedule, the M.A.C.T. ought to have apptied multiplier 15. It was also contended by Mr. Verma that the M.A.C.T. is not justified in not awarding any compensation towards 'loss of love and affection* for the minor children. Further, it was contended by the learned counsel that what is awarded under the head 'loss of Consortium' and 'loss to estate' are on lower side. Here again, we find some force in the contention. Even the compensation to be awarded by the M.A.C.T. under the conventional heads should not be stetic for all the time, because, that compensation would also form part of the compensation. In other words, the cpmpensation to be awarded by the M.A.C.T. under the conventional heads should reflecttime and place and the steep fall in money value. In that view of the matter, we award a sum of Rs. 20.000/- towards 'loss of consortium' to the widow and Rs. 20.000/- towards 'loss of love and affection' to the minor children and another Rs. 20.000/- towards 'loss to estate'. If we apply multiplier 15, the toss ofdependencywould be Rs. 3,60,000 (2000x12x15). 3S.'R57?S3SS~S5SE ^^ In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we allow ftie appeal in part and in substitution of ttie impugned award, we award total compensation of Rs. 4,22,000 under the following heads: -^l I. Lossofdependency Rs. 3.60,000 II. Losstoestate Rs. 20,000 111. Lossofconsortium Rs. 20,000 IV. Lossofloveandaffection Rs. 20.000 V. Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000 Total Rs. 4.22,000 with interest @ 6% per annum from fhe date of the daim petition till payment. The Insurance Company shall deposit the balance of compensation money before the M.A.C.T. wittiin a period of sbc weeks from today. On such deposit being made, the M.A.C.T. ^iatl invest/disburse the compensation money in the same proportion as it has specified in the impugned award. Sd/- ChiefJustice ^ Sd/- SATISHK.AGNIHO Judge ^•••-^^"r'^^s^'^-s^^SFs^sfs^'zs.^