(9 IG COURT QF JUDIOATURE CHHATTISGARH BIQSPUR (DIVI$l0N BENCH) CORAM : Hon’ble Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. M.A. No. 823 OF 200$ APPELLANTSI 1) Smt. Ranmat Bai, aged about 32 years; CLAIMANTS Widow of laterShri Vijay Kumar Dhruve 2) Ku Roshm, aged about 9 years, daughter of late Shn Vuay Kumar Dhruve 3) Sukes Kumar aged about 1 year Slo late Vuay Kumat Dhruve on behalf of appellant No 2 and 3 mother the natural guardian I e Smt Ranmat Bar Residents 0f Kadhala. Post and PIS Gadhi. Distriut Balaghat (MP) at present Village Gondwara, Post Sarora Urla. District Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTSI 1) S. Gunnaidu, S/o late Shri Amanna Telgu, NON-APPLICANTS through Sai Krishna Transport Bhanpun Post Beergaon Pis Khamtarai. Tahsrl and District Raipur (Driver of Truck No AP-16 W 8115) 2) Venkat Rao, Slo Chinnaidu, through Sai Krishna Transport, Bhanpuri Post Beergaon Pfs Khamtarar Tahsrl and Distnct Raipur ’Owner of Truck No AP-1 6 W 81 15) 3) ‘Nationailnsurance Company Ltd Through DIVISionaI Manager National Insurance Company Ltd., GE. Road, Raipur (C.G.). (insurer of Truck No. AP-16 W 81 15) Present: Mr. S.C. Verma, learned counsei for the appellants. Mr. Ali Asgar, learned counsel assisting Mr. Prashant Jayaswal, learned Sr. Advocate for respondent No.3. O D ‘ (Passed on12 of December 2005) The following Order of the Court was passed by . S.R. Nayak, CJ: // / In a death case, the dependants of the deceased not being satisfted with the compensation awarded by the MACT, have pfeferred this appeal. Leamed counsel for the appellants contended (i) that the MACT ls not justihed in taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month for assessing loss of dependency; (ii) that having regard to the age of the deceased on the date of accident, appropriate multiplier to be applied for aesessing loss of dependency is 17 and not 16, as has been done by the MACT and (iii) that what is awarded towards conventional heads of “loss of consortium’ and ‘loss of love and affection' is very much on tower side. We do not find any merit in the first contention. It is true that A.W.-3 in his evidence has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs. 7000 ~ 8000/4 per month doing contract work, but, admittedly the appellants/claimants have not adduced any substantive evidence to show that the deceased was in fact eaming on average monhly income of Rs. 70008000L per month. The A.W. 3 did not produce any document in support of his oral assettion. The deceased was aged 35 years on the date of the accident. Therefore, as per the second Schedule, the MACT ought to have applied multiplier 17. tf we apply multiplier 17, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 5,44,000I-. We. therefore, award compensation of Rs. 5,44,0001- towards ‘loss of dependency'. As regards the third contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the considered opinion that there is some force in the grievance of the appellans that what is awarded towards lose of consortium and loss of love and aifection is on the lower side. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs. 20.000/- tc the widow of the deceased towards {ass of consortium and Rs. 20,000l- towards fave and affection to the children of the deceased. 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. 5,87,000/- under the following heads :- (i) (ii) (iii) (iV) loss of dependency loss of consortium loss of love & affection funeral expenses Tow IIII Rs. 5,44,000I— Rs. 20.000l- Rs. ' 20,000!— Rs. 3.0001- Rs. 5.87.000!- 54bbvi k“{n L, Sdl- i i Chief Jusu‘ce ‘ \, i with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till payment. The parties shall bear their respective costs in this appeal; l / i‘i ‘ , Satish K. Agniholri Judge i: i all Sd/- ; 'x 1