HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. 1336 of 2005 CORAM'. Hon'ble Shri SR. Naynk, CJ I & Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. w Shri Prashant Jaiswal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Ali Asgar, counsel for ORAL ORDER (Passed on 17*“ January, 2006) The following oral order of the Cotirt was passed by ’SRNAVAK, CJ. In this appeal preferred by the parents of the deceased, what is contended is that on the date of the accident i.e. 24.62.2004, the father was aged 56 years and the mother was aged 44 years, and therefore, multiplier 15 ought to have been applied for assessing ‘loss of dependency' taking the average age of the parents whereas the ._ a, Appellan‘rs 1. Kunju Nishad, aged abouf 46 years, 5/0 Claimqn'rs La‘re 5hri Gang Ram Nishad 2. Sm'f. Basarmn Nishad aged abouT 44 years W/o 5hri Kunju Nishad Both R/o Villuge - Bahesar, Pos1' Sondam, Police Sfafion -' Dharsiwn, Ruipur', Dish‘id - Raipur (6.6.) Versus Respondenf . . Meh‘tab Khan 5/0 Tayab Khan, R/o - Non—claimanfs presenf Rio-ME. Market, 6E. Rodd, Bhilai, District - burg (C.6.) 2. Narendm Singh 5/0 Swurn Singh, R/o - MG. Market GE. Road, Bhiiai District- Durg (C.6.) 3. The Orienfai Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Office, Divisional Manager, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) -2- Mo‘i'or Acciden‘rs Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.) has wrongly applied muh‘iplier 13 for fhn‘f purpose. 1* was also confended 111w wha'r is awarded towards ‘loss of filial love' and ‘loss of esfafe' is very much on lower side. 2. We find force in fhe confentions of The learned counsel for The appellant The learned M.A.C.T., i'l’ appears, has faker! info accoun'f 1he‘ age of The father as on fhe date he gave evidence before the M.A.C.T. and not the average age of the parents as on the date of accident. As on the date of accident, the father was aged 56 years and the mother 44 years, is not seriously disputed. If this is the factual position, the appropriate multiplier which ought fo have been applied for assessing ‘loss of dependency’ is multiplier 15. Taking into account theaverage age of the parents, if we apply multiplier 15, the ‘loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,80,000/- and we award accordingly. 3. As we held and reiterated in umpteen number of decisions, the cornpensation to be awarded under the conventional heads too should reflect time and place of the accident and the current money value and it cannot be static for all the times. The M.A.C.T. cannot be justified in awarding the compensation at the same rates under the conventional heads which they used to award decades back. In that view of the matter, we award a sum of Rs.20,000/— towards 'loss of filial love', Rs.20,000/-’ towards ‘loss of estate' and Rs.2,000/— towards funeral expenses. 4. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal in part and in substitution of the impugned award, we. award total compensation of Rs.2,22,000/- under the following heads: (i) Loss of Dependency : Rs.1,80,000/— (ii) Towards 'loss of filial love’ Rs.20,000/- (iii) Towards ‘loss of estate' Rs.2G,OOO/- iv) Towards funeral expenses : Rs. 2,000/- Total: Rs.2,22,000/- ,-3~ (Q wifh fnferesf af fhe mfe of 7% per annum from fhe dafe of claim pefifion fill payment 5. The Insurance~Company shall deposif fhe balance compensaflon wilhln 6 weeks from foday. On such compensal‘lon being made, 1’he M.A.C.T. shall invesT/disburse fhe compensafion money in The same 6. The arfies shall bear 1’heir respecfive cosfs in fhis appeal. Sdl- Sdl- N Chief Justice: proporfions, if any, as specified by H in fhe impugned award. "Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh *7; qwge,” e