HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$6ARH AT BILASPUR M.A. > 1335 of 2005 CORAM: Hon'ble 5hri SR. Nnynk, CJ & Hon'ble 5hri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. gppellan'rs : Sm'r. Ishwari Nishad, aged ubouf 24 Claimanfs years W/o La‘re 5hri Kulpa‘r Nishad. ' 2. Chimu Nishad aged about 1 years 6 mon‘rh, 5/0 Lafe Shri Kulpaf Nishad. 3. Ku. Sandhya Nishad, aged abouf 4 monfhs, D/o Lafe Shri Kulpa? Nishad. [Appellun‘r No.2 & 3 being minor on Behalf of V1hrough his legal guardian mMher *he appelkxm No.1] 4. Smt Biswan'rin Nishad aged abouf 47 years W/o Lafe Shri Gokui Nishad. A” Rio-Viliage — Bahesar, Past-Sondara, Police Sfa‘rion — Dharsiwa, Raipur, DisfricT—Raipur (C5) Versus rRespondenf : 1. Mehfab Khan S/o Tayab Khan, R/o - Non-chiman‘rs presen'r RIO-ME. Marke'l’, 6E. Road, 2. Narendra Singh 5/0 Sworn Singh, R/o - MG. Market G.E. Road, Bhilai Disfricf- Durg (C.G.) 3. The Orien‘ral Insurance Company LimHed, Through Divisionai Office, Divisional Manager, Ku'i'chery Chowk, Raipur, Disfricf-Raipur (C.6.) Bhilai, Disfricf - burg (C.6.) 5hri Shivendu Pandya, Counsel for The appellani’s. 5hri Prashan'r Jaiswal, 5r. Advocate wi‘l’h 5hri Ali Asgar, counsel for ihe Insurance-Company. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 17*h January, 2006) The following oral order of fhe Cour? was iassed by S.R.NAYAK, CJ. 1. In fhis appeal preferred by The widow and children of The deceased for more compensaTion, The only conTenTion urged by The learned counsel for The appellanT is ThaT, in The facTs and circumsTances 9f The case and evidence on record, The MoTor . ‘2’ Acciden'rs Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.) oughf #0 have npplied multipiier 18 for assessing ‘loss of dependency' having regard 1'0 ‘rhe age of fhe deceased on The dafe of fhe accident If was aiso incidenfaliy confended fha‘l’ whaf is awarded under fhe head ‘loss of esfa're' and ‘loss of consortium' is very much on lower side and ‘rhaf the M.A.C.T. is nof jusfified in no? awarding any compensafion fo fhe minor children Towards loss of 'love and affecfion’. 2. We find force in The submissions of fhe learned counsel for fhe appellant The widow of deceased was examined in the case. In her deposition, she has stated that the deceased was 27 years of age on the date of the accident. This say of the widow is not seriously contested. The learned M.ALC.T. has also not stated any reason to disbelieve the version of the widow of the deceased. However, the M.A.C.T., without disclosing any reason, has opined that the age of the deceased might be more than 30 years and on that basis it has applied multiplier 17 for assessing 'loss of dependency'. What has been done by the learned M.A.C.T., in our considered opinion, has to be disapproved. We tend to take the age of the deceased as 27 years, as stated by his widow and if we take the age of the deceased as 27 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied for assessing ‘loss of dependency' would be multiplier 18 and if we apply multiplier 18, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,16,000/- as against Rs.2,04,000/- awarded by the M.A.C.T. 3. We have repeatedly held and reiterated that even the 'compensation to be awarded under the conventional hea'ds should reflect the time and place of the accident and the steep fall in the money value in recent years and it cannot be static for all the times. In that view of the matter, what has been awarded by fhe learned M.A.C.T. towards ‘loss of estate' and 'loss of consortium' to the widow is very much on lower side. The deceased left behind him the minor children. The M.A.C.T. ought ‘ to have awarded reasonable (/1 ,,. §_ -3- compensation Towards ‘loss of love and affecfion'. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs.20,000/- fowards 'loss of esfafe', Rs.20,000/- fowards 'Ioss of consor'rium' 1o the widow, Rs.20,000/— 'rowards ‘loss of love and affec'rion’ to The appellanfs-minor children and Rs.2,000/— fowards funeral expenses. 4. In 1'l1e resulf and for 'rhe foregoing reasons, we allow fhe appeal in parf and in subsfi‘i'u‘rion of fhe impugned award, we award fofal compensation of Rs.2,78,000/- under fhe following heads: with inferes'l' a'r 7% per annum from fhe da're of claim pefi'rion fill payment 5. The Insurance-Company shall deposif 'rhe balance compensafion within 6 weeks from Today. On. such deposiT, The M.A.C.T. shall invesT/disburse The compensaTion money in The same proporTions, if any, specified by iT in The impugned award. or)“; L (i) Loss of Consorfium I : Rs.20,000/- (ii) Loss of Esfafe : Rs.20,000/— (iii) Loss of Love a Affecnon : Rs.2o,000/- (iv) Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- (v) Loss of Dependency : Rs.2,16,000/— Tofal 6. The parTies shall bear Their respecTive cosfs in This appeal. l_%_~._o Sdl' r Sd/-. . Sd/-. chief Justice 1 DILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH z