HI@H COURT OF CHH^THS^RH ^T BIL^SPUR Mise.^DD©alNo. 950 of 2005 CORAM: Hon'ble Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ &, Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Apoellants 1. Brijmohan Das S/o Late BandhGndas, aged about 45 years. 2, Chandrika Bai W/o Brijmohan Das, aged about 40 years. 3. Ku. Roshani b/o Brijmohan t>as, aged about 13 years, 4, Ajit Das S/o Brijmohan Oas, aged about 10 years, 5. Satyaprakash Das S/o Brijmohan Das, aged about 5 years. 6. Ku. Pushpanjali D/o Brijmohan Das, aged about 3 years, Appellants No.3 to 6 ar@ minors through their natural guardian father Brijmohan Das 5/o late Badhandas. All are R/o Villa^e Salkanawagaon, P,S. & Tahsii Kota, Distt. Bibspur (C.G.) Versus Resoondents 1. Rajendraprasad Dwivedi, S/o Rampyare Dwivedi, aged about 28 years, R/o Mazganwa, P.5. Najgarhi, Distt. Rewa (M.P.) At present Vyapar Vihar/ AAP. Complex, P*S. TarbahQr, Bitespur, Tahsil <& Distt. Bitaspur. 2. Bholaprasad Sharma, S/o AAahayir Prasad Dubey, Aged about 42 years, (Owner of VehicSe Ashish Travels) R/o New Bas Stand, Bilaspur (C.e.) and Vyapar Vihar, M,P. Compfex, - ^- P.5. Tarbahar, Tohsil &, Distt. Bi'Jaspur (C.B) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,, Divisional Office, Sakin-In Frontof High Court, Bilaspur, Tahsil & bistt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Shri ^cnoj A^ishra, Counsel for the appeilants. Shri Ali Asgar, Counsel assisted with Shri Prashant Jaiswal, Sr. Couner for respondent No.3. k ORAL ORDER (Passed on 2nd January 2006) The following oral order of the Court was passed by S.ft.NAYAK, C.J. 1. Although it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the AAotor Accidents Cfaims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.) is not justified in taking the income of the deceased at notional rate of Rs.15,000/" per annum, because, he was selling bakery products and earning Rs.100 - 200/- per day, the above contention is not acceptable to us. The above plea taken by the Gppellants-ClGimants is not substantiated by the claimGnts by adducing evidence, 2, It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appeilants that what^ awarded towards loss of love and affection is on lower side. It was also contended 1+iat M.A.C.T. is not justified in not awarding any compensation towards loss of estate. We find force in the contention, 3. Having regard t6 pbce and time of the accident, we think it just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection. We further award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate'. -T>- 5- 4. The impugned award shall stand modified in terms of the above direction and in all other respects, the impugned award shall unaltered< No costs. Sd/- 1 Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Sd/- ~— Judge ChiefJustice ^ i T il^m^ ^ •