HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. 1087 of 2005 AppeUants 1. 2. 3. 4. ¥^ Respondents Versus 1. ^ DB: & Sarojaiii Bai, widow ofRadhelal Yadav, aged about 33 years, Chaitram, S/o Late Shri Radhelal Yadav, aged about 13 years. Ku. Ranjita, D/o Late Shri Radhelal Yadav, aged about 11 years, Ku. Madhu, D/o Late Shri Radhe Lal YAdav, aged about 3 years. Appellaats No, 2 to 4 are mmor, fhrough their guardiaa mofher Smt Sarojani Bai, widow of Late Shri Radhe Lal,R/o ViUage- Padampur, Thaaa- Jarhagaon, Tahsil- MungeH, Distnct- Bilaspur (C.G.). Ashok Kumar, S/o Jawahar Sixigh Goaxid, aged about 35 yeara, Occupation- Vehicle Driver, Truck No. 10-ZB-0218, R/oTivrta, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.). Diaesh Siagh, S/o H,M,Siogh, aged about 46 years, Vehicle owner, Truck No. C.G. -10 -ZB 0218, R/o Yadutiaiidati Nagar»Thaxiar Cwil Lines, BUaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). The New India Insuraace Compaay Ltd. Insurance Company ofTruck No, CG-10 ZB-0218. Smt Anjali Phanse, W/o G.R.Phanse, aged about 49 years, Vehicle owner Commander Jeep No, CG 10 BB/1269, R/o Chandani Chowk, Kududand, Bilaspur (C.G.). United India Insurance Conipaay Ltd, Insurance Company ofJeep No. C.G. 10 BB/1269, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur, Hon'ble ShriJustice S. R. Nayak, C.J. Hon^ble ShriJustice Satish K, Agnihotd, J. 2. 3. 4. 5. Mr. Vimalesh Bajpayee, Advocate, for fhe appeUants. Mr, Piashant Jaysuswal, Senior Advocate wifh Shri Ali Asgar^ Advocate for fhe Respondent^f No,3^ ¥<< "1, ORAL ORDER (15th December 2005) The foUowing oider offhe Court was passed by S* R. Wayak, C.J. In this appeal prcferred by fhe dependents offhe deceased seekuig more compensation, learaed counsel for fhe appeUaats would contend fhat fhough the M.A.C.T. has taken fhe age of fhe deceased as 50 yeara on fh.e basis offhe postaiortem report, it has wrongly appUed miiltiplier 11 iastead ofmultipUer 13. It was iiext contended fhat M.A.C.T. has not awarded aiiy compensation towards conventional heads Le. loss to fhe estate' and loss of lcwe and afiTection>. Learaed counsel further contented fhat what has been awarded towards consortiiiai is 011 lower side. We fouxid inerit m fhe contentions oflearaed counsel for fhe appeBaxits. Iffhfe age of fhe deceased was 50 yeara on fhe date of accident^ in. terms of the sfccond Schedule offhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appropriate m.ultiplier is 13 and not 11. Ifwe appty multipMer 13, total loss of dependency comes to Rs, 3,12,000/-(2000x12x13). Therefore, we award sum of Rs. 3,12,0(X)/- towards loss of dependency as agaiast Rs. 2,64,000/- awarded by the M.A.C.T. Loss to the estate is^undemably a head of compensation which is required to be awarded ia a deafh .case» Therefore, we award Rs. 20,000/- towards loss to the estate' and Rs. 20,000/- towanls loss oflove and affection. We also aewsad Rs. ^),000/- towards loss ofoonsordum^ as agamst Rs. 5000/- awarded by fhe Tribunal* In the rcsult and for fhe forcgoiag reasons^ we aUow fhe appeal ia part aiid ia substitution of fhe unpugned award, we award total sum ofRs. 3,74,000/-under fhe foUowmg heads:- iSSS^ Thakur ^ <.. .y Loss ofdependency Rs. 3,12,000=00 Loss to fhe estate Rs. 20,000=00 Loss of k»veand afFection Rs» 20,000=00 Loss ofconsordum Rs. 20,0008800 Funeral expenses Rs. 2.000=00 Total Rs. 3,74,000°00 with iaterest as awarded by the M,A.C,T. The Insiiran.ee Company shall deposit the balaiice compensation wifhm six weeks fix>m today and on such deposit bemg made^ fhe M.A.C.T. will disburse/iavest in fhe same proportion5as it has specified ia fhe inipugned award, In fhe facts and circumstaaces of fhe case, fhe pardes shatt bear fheir respective costs, Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- SATISHK.AGNIHOTM Judge -^-