1 2025:CGHC:22915 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 758 of 2017 1 - Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Aged About 18 Years E- 8, R I I C O Industrial Area, Sitapur, Rajasthan 302022 Present Address Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh .............Insurer, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Maya Devi W/o Late Viranchilal Sahu, Aged About 45 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Rampur, Post Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Siddharth Kumar S/o Late Viranchilal Sahu, Aged About 25 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Rampur, Post Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Ramadhin Sahu S/o Late Nanhuram Sahu, Aged About 90 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Rampur, Post Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ................Claimants, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Pradeep Kumar Rajwade S/o Shri Sumarsai, Aged About 30 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Rampur, Post Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ..............Driver, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Babulal Kurre S/o Bhagwandas, Aged About 58 Years Occupation Service And Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Katkona, Masjidpara, Post Katkona, Present Address Village Tendua, Post Ranai, P.S. Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ...............Owner, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.06.11 18:48:35 +0530 2 For Appellant : Shri Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/06/2025 1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company submits that the only ground which is being raised in this appeal is that the income of the deceased has not been properly calculated. Along with basic salary, the amounts of dearness allowance and gratuity have also been calculated, whereas the calculation should be made on basic salary only. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 submits that the amount which has been obtained by the deceased is the basic salary and other emoluments given to him. If the deceased had been alive, the same would have been for the benefit of the entire family. 3. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 4. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh