W,» 7x w” r. mul§3 HIGH CQURT OF JUD!C_&TURE CHHAITISGARH: BILASPUR Division Bench: - Hcn’bie $hri SR. NAYAK, CJ & Hon’ble Shri Satish K Agnihotri, J. Misc. Appeal No. S72 6F 2$05 £PPELLANT3 1. Smt. Pwhpa Sharma, aged about 48 QLAIMAINTS years, widcw of D.K. Sharma 2. Prabhakar Sharma, S/o D.K, Sharma, aged about 18 years, Both residents 9f Lakhenagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus RE§PQNDENT§ 1. Vikram Naik, Sfo Arun Kumar Naik. NON-APPLICANTS resident of Nehru Nagar, Kalibadi Chauk, Raipur, Tahsii and Di3trict Raipur (C.G.) (driver of Maruti Van No. (1G, 07 ZD 2835) 2. Mohammad Faizai, S/o Md. Akit Musaiman, resident of Chhotapara, PS: City Kotwaii. Tehsii & District: Raipur (C.GI) (real owner of Maruti Van No.0G-O7/ZD-2835) 3. Smti Sapan Laxmi Bharti, Behind Hotel Guru, Pandari, Raipur (3.6.) (registered owner of Maruti Van No.6G-O7IZD-2835), 4. The New india insurance Company Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, The New india insurance Company Ltd.. Jaii Road, Raipur (C.G.) (insurer of Maruti Van No.CG-07/ZD-2835). 5. Dr. K. Sharma, S/o Vidya Prasad Tiwari, R/o Lakhenagar, Raipur, Tehsii & District: Raipur (C.G.) Present: Mr. SC. Verma, iearned counsel for the appeilanw Mr. Prashant Jayaswal, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Amrito Dee. Advocate for respondent No.4llnsurance Company. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15' December, 2006) The following Order of the Court was passed by SR, Nayak, CJ: In a death case, the mothar and younger brother of the deceased who are daimants not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the MACT. have preferred this appeal. The only contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that in assessing loss of dependency the Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier 12 instead of multiplier 13. it was pointed out that on the date of the death, the mother was 4? years of’ age and therefore, appropriate multiplier to be appiied is 13 as per 2'” Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. That is the oniy contention ‘ urged before us by learned counsel for the appellants. The grievance made before us by learned counsel for the appellants is well justified. 2. Having regard to the age of the ‘mother of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier 13 to assess loss of dependency. in that vtew of the matter, we award a sum of Rs.4.26.504/- (Rs2.734/- x l 12 x l3) towards loss of dependency in substitution of Rs.3.93.~696/— awarded by the Tribunal under the said head. 3t The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The impugned award shall stand modified in terms of our order. in all other respects, the impugned award shall remain unaltered. There is no order as to costs. Subbu