IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA5PUR MA. No.815 6f 2005 CORAM: Hon'b‘e $hri SR. Nnyuk, CJ & Hon’ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. 1. Smf. Vimla Agrawal W/o Lafe Shri Angim Pmsad Agrawai, aged abou‘t 50 year‘s; 2. Mukesh Agrawal 5/0 Lufe Shri Angim Pmsad Agrawal, aged abouf 3O years; 3. Umesh Agrawal, 5/0 Lute Shri Angira “ Pmsad Agrawal, agzd abouT 26 yaars; AH Residen‘r cf Gandhi Mandir' Ward, Bhafapam, Disfricf Raipur (£26.). AppeHan'rs Claiman'rs a; a Vergus 1. Deepak Bhu‘k‘da 5/0 5hri Anand Bhufda, aged abou‘r 35 year5, Permanem R/o Luxmi Nagar, Bhilai, Police S‘rcmon Nevai, Disfr‘ic‘r Durg (Ca), Presenfly Residing a? Belha, Police Sfa‘rion & Tahsii Belhu, Disfricf Biiuspur (C.G.) @RXVER OF OFFENDING HERO HONDgNO. C.€v.—010, ZE— 05891) 2. Rajesh Agmwal, 5/9 5hri 6omkhna'rh Agrawai, R/o Beiha, Poiice S‘ra‘rion & Tahsii Beiha! Disfricf Bilaspur (Ga) (REGISTERED OWNER OF CRIMINAL HERO HON!) Responden‘rg NOLG‘ 010 ZE-O5891 '? 3. Tina Orien‘ml Insurance Company Limi'red; Through: The Divisional Manager, The Orienl'ul insurance Company Limiledi Raipur (CEQ H 55m Ashok Soni, Counsel for The appellanfs. 5hri Ali Asgar, Counsel assisfed wi'i’h Shr-i Pmshanf J$uiswcxL 5r. Counsei, for responden‘r No.3 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 2“ JanuaV'Y , 2006) The foilowing cml order of ‘H'Ie Cour“? was passed by SRNAYAK, CJ. 1. This is an appea! prefer-red by The‘dependanfs for- more comp§nsa+ion._ I? was confended fhm‘ fhé documen‘rs produced in The case would go To-show Thm‘ fhe deceasad was earning mon'rhiy income WE Rs.7.000/m, bu‘f, The Mofor' Accidem’s Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.) h<1$ i’qken The monihly income of ihe dzcensad as Rs.6,000/—iignor-ing EX.P.16 salary car‘rifica‘i'e for assessing The loss of dependency. IT was also comended 'l'ha‘l' ‘ihe M.A’C.T. was no? jusi'ifiad in no? awarding any compenscd’ion under The convem’ional heads, such as loss of love and offec‘rion and loss of esfa'ie. 2. We do no? find any meri'i in The firsf conTen‘rion. Ex.P.16 is nof when info uccounf by 'rhe M.A.C.T. for assessing The loss of. dependency on The ground Thai Ex.P.16 is only a carbon copy of fhe income cer‘l‘ifica‘i’e and fhe claimanfs did no? proddce fhe original of ‘ihe some. The above reason given by The M.A.C.T. canno‘i be condemned as perverse in The conTesT. We, however, find some force in The second'conTenTion of The learned counsel for The appellanTs. According To us, whaT is awarded Towards loss of consorTium To The widow of The deceaseduis on lower side. The M.A.C.T. oughT To have awarded reasonable compensaTion Towards loss of esTaTe. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs.25,000/— To The widow of The deceased Towards logs of censor-Hum and anofher sum of Rs.25,000/— fowards iass of asf’m‘e. 4. ‘ In Th5 resuh‘ and for The foregoing reasons, we allow fhg appeal iiq jpm“? and in subs‘riftlfion of fhe impugned award, we award sum of RSL4,39,000/— under fhe foilowing heads: i‘ Loss of depandency R53 $4,000!— ii) Funeral Expenses ;,. Rs. 5,000/— iii) Loss of Consorfium Rs. 25,000/~ Rs. 25,000/~ iv) Loss of asfm‘e’ V‘ Tom! Rs.4,39,000/- wi’rh infere’s’r a1 9% per onnum from fhe da're of claim pe'iifion fili payment 4. No cosfs. sdl_ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge chief Justice /’ '