1 2025:CGHC:15976 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 771 of 2019 1 - Smt. Poonam Rai W/o Prakash Chand Rai Aged About 48 Years R/o Navapara Ambikapur, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 2 - Shivchandra Rajwade S/o Kameshwar Rajwade Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Shivpur, Police Station Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Smt. Sandhya Bai W/o Late Santosh Ram Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Mutki, Police Station And Tahsil Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 2 - Revti Singh S/o Late Santosh Ram Aged About 17 Years Minor Through The Legal Gaurdian Mother Sandhya R/o Village Mutki, Police Station And Tahsil Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 3 - Rahul Singh S/o Late Santosh Ram Aged About 13 Years Minor Through The Legal Gaurdian Mother Sandhya R/o Village Mutki, Police Station And Tahsil Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 4 - Premlata D/o Late Santosh Ram Aged About 11 Years Minor Through The Legal Gaurdian Mother Sandhya R/o Village Mutki, Police Station And Tahsil Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 5 - Arushi D/o Late Santosh Ram Aged About 6 Years Minor Through The Legal Gaurdian Mother Sandhya R/o Village Mutki, Police Station And Tahsil Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Anita W/o Late Santosh Ram Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Mutki, Police Station And Tahsil Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.04.08 12:42:26 +0530 2 7 - Ankush Singh S/o Late Santosh Ram Aged About 6 Years Minor Through The Legal Guardian Mother Anita R/o Village Mutki, Police Station And Tahsil Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 8 - Priti D/o Late Santosh Ram Aged About 4 Years Minor Through The Legal Guardian Mother Anita R/o Village Mutki, Police Station And Tahsil Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 9 - Hirmaniya W/o Late Umeshwar Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Mutki, Police Station And Tahsil Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 6 : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For other Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. ORDER ON BOARD (04.04.2025) 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 01.12.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 24/2018 awarding a compensation of Rs.71,30,494/- with interest @ 7% per annum, in favour of Respondents/claimants for their irreparable loss. 2. The gist of claim before the Tribunal in short is that, on 19.10.2017, when Santosh Ram (deceased) along with his friend Panchu going by a motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 15 CN 0328 from Village Mutki to Village Parwatipur, at around 6 PM, near 10th Battalion Petrol Pump, appellant no.2 driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No.CG 15 CZ 0203 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on spot. The claimants/respondents, preferred a claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.99,29,768/-. Learned 3 Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.71,30,494/- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. While passing the impugned award, as the offending vehicle was not insured, therefore, the Tribunal has fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellants i.e. owner and driver of the offending vehicle against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellants. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the monthly income of deceased Santosh estimated by the Tribunal as Rs. 42,787/- is erroneous. On the basis of his monthly income, his yearly income calculated to Rs. 5,13,444/- whereas it is not stated that the deceased was paying income tax, hence his annual income estimated at Rs. 5,13,444/- is high and should be reduced. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Respondents/Claimants submits that on the basis of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and awarded the amount of compensation which is just and proper and requires no interference by this Court. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 6. In this case, deceased Santosh's wife Smt. Sandhya Devi (AW-1) as well as Santosh's workplace's assistant manager, personnel Kedarnath Sao (AW-3), who was posted at Rehar underground mine, Getra, have been examined. He has produced deceased Santosh's service book and salary slip exhibit P-10/C and exhibit P- 11/C respectively, according to which the deceased used to work there and received wages of Rs. 2,139/- per day. After considering the entire evidence, the Tribunal has concluded that as per the statements of the witnesses, no worker used to work 26 days in a month. The salary slip attached as exhibit P-11/C is the salary slip of the same month - October, 2017, on the 19th of the month on 4 which Santosh died. No salary slip before that has been produced. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence produced, the Tribunal has estimated that Santosh used to work for about 20 days in a month and on the basis of his daily wage of Rs. 2,139/-, his monthly wage has been estimated at Rs. 42,787/- and annual income at Rs. 5,13,444/-, there is no reason to disbelieve it. The argument of the appellants side that the said annual income comes under the category of tax and income tax return has not been submitted, hence that income should not be considered. This argument is not acceptable because no questions were asked to the deceased's wife during cross-examination in this matter. In such a situation, in the absence of income tax return, the income estimated by the Tribunal of the deceased cannot be disbelieved. 7. Along with the above, the Tribunal has given future prospects of 30% after deducting income tax on the annual determined income. Considering the number of claimants, personal expenses of the deceased have been deducted by 1/5. Considering the age of the deceased as 41 years, a multiplier of 14 has been applied and there is no legal error in the compensation amount determined in other items. Therefore, the argument of the appellant is not acceptable. 8. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellants being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. 9. Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Shubham