HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARM AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal No^ /2005 CORAM: Hon'bleShriS.R.Nayak.CJ & Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Appellant Non-applicant 3 United India tnsurance Co. Ltd., District Raigarh (CG) Versus Respondents iaa ^i.. 1. Shabbir Khan S/o Peer Khan, aged 23 yeare, R/o Village Bilaspur, P.S. Sarsiwan, District Raipur (C.G.) (Driver) Non-aBptjcant -1 2. Dinesh Chandra S/o Badrika Prasacf Chandra, aged 18 years, R/o Vtllage & P.S. Sarsiwan, District Raipur (C.G.) Non-apDticant -2 3. Ani! Pandey S/o Gopal Das Pandey, aged 35 years, R/o 27 Khoti, Bilaspur, Distrlct Bilaspur (C.G-). Non-apDlicant -4 4) Munna Jaisvral, S/o Jaylal Jaiswal, aged 27 yeare, R/o Sarab Bhatti, Bhatgaon, Thana Bilaighad, District Ralpur (C.G.) Non-applicant -5 5} The National Insurance Co., Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Non-aoolicant - 6 S) Shyambaf, aged 30 years, Wd/o Udayram Sahu, 7) Ganesh Ram S/o Udayram Sahu, aged 13 years, 8) Govindram S/o Udayram, aged 11 years. 7 & 8 are minors, through Wali mother, Shyam Bai Sahu. 9) Dhansai 5/o Ghasiram Sahu, aged 60 years, 10) ParvaU Bai W/o Dhansai Sahu, aged 57 years, 11) Dujram, S/o Dhansal Sahu, aged 25years, Alt R/o Village Mohtara, Police Station Sarsiwan, District Raigarh (C.G.) Claimants tl§te;*.».ri;.,...., ie''*'Mfe' Shri Sanjay Shyam Agrawal, leamed counsel for the appellant. Shri Anil Guiati, teamed counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, leamecf counsel for respondent No.5 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 06"' September, 2006) The following oral order of the Court was passed by S.R. Nayak, C.J. We do not find any justification for the Insurance-Company to prefer this appeal. What has been awarded by the M.A.C.T., in our considered opinion, is just and reasonable compensation envisaged under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This is a death case. The deceased, on the date of accident and his demise, was working as a mason and he was aged 32 years. He left behind him, his young wife and minor children. They do not have any other source of livelihood. E!SlS^t 2. The fact that the deceased died in the accident on account of the actionable negligence on the part of Uie driver of the motor vehicle involved in ttie accident and insured by the Insurance-Company, is not disputed before us. In other words, the Insurance Company is llable to pay the compensation. Before we proceed further, at this stage itself, it needs to be noticed that the tnsurance-Company has not sought permission under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to contest the claim on merit. Be that as it may, the monthly income taken by the M.A.C.T. at Rs.3750/- per month for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency cannot be regarded as excessive or unreasonable. As pointed out supra, on the date of accident, e deceased was working as ^ msst |^': •-"^•3- mason and, according to the tegal representatives of the deceased, hs was earning Rs.150/- per day or Rs.4500/- per month. The status of the deceased that he was worklng as mason is not seriously disputed before us or before the Tribunal. The accident took place on 16.09.2<X)3 at village Sarsiwan. A mason eaming between Rs.125/- or 150/- per day having regafd to time and place, could not be ruled out. As held and reiterated quite often, in computing loss ofdependency and arriving at the income of the deceased in the case of non-salaried persons, an element of guess work necessarily goes into the decision-making. Taking ihe totality of the circumstences, the Tribunal was, according to us, justified in taking the monthty income of the deceased at Rs.3750/- and having deducted one-third of the same towards personal expenses of the deceased, it calculated the total compensation payable to the representatives of the deceased towards loss of dependency. 3. No other point was urged before us to assail the correctness of the impugned award. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Chief Justice —- —t_ Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge