HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR DMSIQNLBgNCH CORAM : HON'BLESHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ & HON'BLE SHRI D.R. DESHMUKH. J. AEEEUANTS APPLiCANTS RESF^NJDENTS NON APPLICANTS MANo,J1222.of2003 1. Siyaram Sahu son of tate Bhajoram aged about 59years. 2. Smt. Phoolbai Sahu wife of Siyaram Sahu aged about 54 years. ^ Both residents of Bhadrapara Bateo NagarTahsil & Distt. Korba (C.G.). VERSUS '•> 1. Ghurwalal son of Chaituram Gond aged about 31 years resident pf Sarbundya, Out Post Urga P.S.Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.) 2. M/s Shri B.P. Mishra & Co. Through Rajesh Mishra son of late Bhagwatiprasad Mishra agecf 42 years R/o Semipali, Out Post Urga P.S. Korba Tah. & Distt Korba At present Rani Road Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.) 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office T.P. Nagar Korba, Through Branch Manager, New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Korba. 4. Samsuddin son of Rizauddin Ansari aged 24years R/o Dhirbandha P.S. & Distt. Gadhwa (Jharkhand) At present Near Nudhwari Korba (C.G.) 5. Purshottam Agrawat son of Ganpattal Agrawal aged 50 years R/o Darri Road Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.). 6. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Meenu Complex Kosabadi.Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.), Present: Shri R.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants. ^ 3- ORALOJRDER [Passed~oniTsr"August, 2006) The following oral order of the Court was passed by S.R.NAYAK.CJ. In this appeal preferred by the dependents of th~e dec'eased seeking more compensation, it was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the MACT wrongly applied the multiplier 15 for assessing loss of dependency. It was next contended by the iearned counsel for fhe appellants that the MACT is not justified in deductins 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses while assessing loss of dependency. These were the on!y two contentions urged by learned counsel for the appellants. 2. We do not find any merit in both the contentions. At any rate, having regard to the total compensation awarded by the MACT, there is absolutely no justifieation for the appellants to make any grievance. We say this because the deceasedwas an unmarried man and he left behind him the mother and father. On the date ofaccident, the mother was aged 54 years whereas the father was aged 59 yeare, and if we take the average of theage of the motber and father, it comes to 56.5 and therefore, appropriate multiplier to be applied for assessing loss of dependency is 8, whereas the MACT erroneously has applied multiplier 15 for assessing loss ofdependency. The deceased was an employee in the Railways. It was pointed out that in the course of submissions, learned counsel for'the appetlants would tell us that even the father ofthe deceased isa retired officer and pensioifier of BALCO who held the office of Manager. Ifthisis the fact-situation, there is nothing wrongon the part ofthe MACT in deducting 2/3 iofthejncome towards personal expenses 'of the deceased while assessing ioss of Baais^B^t^^asay««"i'"i.iiiii 11 ii:ii>iiuiu.nii <w^!^^^S^sa:iS^!5S!T"~ """" --•7--••-——— ^ ..^ ^. dependency. Even assuming that normally in a case like this, 50% of the income ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, even then, there is no good ground for us to interfere, because, the MACT has awarded more compensation by applying wrong multiplier towards loss of dependency. !n the totalify of facts andcircumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that what has been awarded by the MACT is a just and reasonable compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and it does not warrant any interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sdl- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge fiflll if'"Nti