HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR (DIVISION BENCH) CORAM : Hon'ble Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ Hon'ble Shri SaUsh K. Agnihotri, J. APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS Misc. Apoeal No. 801 OF 2005 1. Geeta Bai, aged about 40 years, Wd/o Late Gend Lal Sahu 2. Tripurari, aged about 70 years, S/o Gautam Ram Sahu 3. SamundBai,Agedabout65yeare, "W/o Tripurari Sahu 4. Manohar Lal, Aged about 23 years S/o Late Gend Lal Sahu 5. Paras Ram Sahu.aged about 21 years, S/o Late Gend Lal Sahu 6. Samaru Lal, Aged about 19 years, S/o Late Gend La! Sahu, All R/o village Karipath, P.S. & Tahsi! Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus 1. Bhagirathi, S/o Babuia! Sahu R/o Nagarda, P.S.& Tahsit Bilaigarh, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office - Raipur R.DA. Building, Bairan Bazar Raipur (C.G.) 3. Tejram, S/o Puranik Ram Sahu R/o Sambalpur, P.S. Laibag District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. Gupta Cement Agency Ganj Chowk, Rajnandgaon Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5. Nationai Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Branch - Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Mr Gautam Khetrapal, leamed counset forthe appeliants. Mr. Aii Asgar, learned counse! assisting Mr. Prashant Jayas<wal, iearned Sr. Counsei for the Insurance Co./respondent No. 2. fv -2-- ORAL ORDER (Passed on ?tn of Decesnber The fottowing Ordsr of the Court was passed by S.R. Nayak, CJ: This is a death case. The dependents of the deceased have preferred this appeal for more compensation. We have heard iearned counsei for the parties. It was contended by learned oounsel for the appellants that the deceased was working as IVIason and earning Rs. 250/- per day. Though, that is the claim of the appellants/ctaimants and they have examined <wo witnesses, in support oftheir ciaim, having regard to the piace in which the deceased was working as Mason, it couid not be said that he was earning daily wage of Rs. 250/-, that too, al! ths days in a month. Therefore, the income laken by the Tribunal for assessing loss of dependency @ 100/- per day or Rs. 3000/- per month could not be condemned as arbitrary. However, the MACT has committed error apparent on the face of the record in assessing loss of dependency. If the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3.000/-, his yearly income wouid become Rs. 36,000/-, whereas the MACT has taken yeariy income of the dsceased at Rs. 30,000/- and if we deduct 1/3 of his income towards personal expenses, monthly loss of dependency would be Rs. 2000/-. Thus, total loss of dependency would be 3,60,000/- (2000 x 12 x 15). !n that view of the matter, we award a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- towards loss of dependency. The impugned award shali stand modified accordingly. In alt other respects, the impugned award shall remain unaltered. There sha!! be no order as to costs. The appea! is atlowed to the extent indicaled above. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge •iilA>W