H16H COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR (Division Bench) CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ & HON'BLE SHRI SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. Aopettants Respondents IWISC. APPEALN0.46D OF 2005 (1) Smt. Poonam Bai, Aged 40 yeare W/o Rajju @ Rajkumar Vishvakarma (2) Rajj'u @ Rajkumar Vishvakarma Aged 48 years, S/o late Lalaram Vishvakarma Both R/o Amapara, Near Bazar, P.S. Azad Chowk, Raipur (CG). VERSUS (1) Santosh Singh, S/o Darshan Singh, Aged 35 years, Occupation Truck Driver, R/o Sarona Plant, P.S. Amanaka, Tahsil & Distt: Raipur (CG). (2) Ashok Bhai Sorathia S/oVeljlBhalSorathia, Ownerofthetruck, R/o Sarona Plant, P.S. Amanaka, Tahsil & Distt: Raipur (CG). (3) The National Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Through: Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur (CG). Present Mr. A.S. fqbal, leamed counsel fbr the appellante. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 28tn of November 2005) The following Order ofthe Court was passed by S.R. Nayak, CJ: The award passed by the MACT is assailed mainly on the ground ttiat instead of applying multiplier 18, wrong mulUplfer of 16 is -2.- y- \^ applied for the purpose of determining the loss of dependency. It was also contended that the MACT has taken the Income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month for the purpose of assessing loss of dependency. We do not find any merit in both the contentions. The deceased was unmam'ed and on the date of the accident and demise he was 19 years of age. It is stated that as on the date of the accident, the claimants, i.e. father and mother of the deceased were aged 48 and 44 years, respectively. In the first place we woutel state that the MACT ought not to have applied multiplier 16. It seems that the MACT taking into account the age of the deceased has determtned the mulUplier 16. In terms of law, it ought to have taken the average age of the parents to determine appropriate multiplier for the purpose of assessing toss of dependency. In that vww of the matter, there is absolutely no merit in the flrst contention of the tearned counsel. If ttiere is any aggrieved party, it is ttie other side with regard to the application ofwrong mutfiplier. (2) Although the appellants-ctaimants claimed ttiat the deceased was working as a cook and earning monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. The ctaim put forth by the ctaimants remained as claim only without any proof. The claimants have not produced any evidence to accept the self-serving siatement to prove that the deceased was vrorking as a cook and he was eaming monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. In the absence of any tegal evidence, we cannot take any excepUon to the MACT in teking the Income of the deceased at noUonal levet. The appeat is devoid of fflerit It is accordingly dismissed, however, with no costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge %Ty-f'ed fl 5-tbt)i