-1- 2025:CGHC:47973 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No.1384 of 2024 1 - Reshmi Pandey W/o Narendra Pandey Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kumhali, Khaspara, P.S. Badanji, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Gagan Baghel S/o Lekhan Baghel R/o Patelpara, Village Kondaval, Post Titirgaon, Tahsil Jagdalpur, P.S. Frezerpur, District Bastar (C.G.) (Owner) 2 - Branch Manager Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Peninsula Businesss Park, Tower A, 15th Floor, G.K. Marg, Lower Pareel, Mumbai (M.H.) Through Branch Manager Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office 2nd Floor, Building No. 9/1, Behind Khandelwal Motors, M.G. Road, Adjoining Treasure Island Mall, Indore (M.P.) (Insurer) 3 - Narendra Pandey S/o Sukmani Pandey Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Kumhali, Khaspara, P.S. Badanji, District Bastar (C.G.) Claimants 4 - Harish Kumar Pandey S/o Narendra Pandey Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Kumhali, Khaspara, P.S. Badanji, District Bastar (C.G.) Claimants 5 - Devesh Pandey S/o Narendra Pandey Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Kumhali, Khaspara, P.S. Badanji, District Bastar (C.G.) Claimants ... Respondents For appellant/claimant : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For respondent/Insurance Company : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.09.2025 1) Heard on I.A.No.1, application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal. 2) Mr. Tulsyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that this appeal has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation and there is delay of 571 days in filing instant appeal. He would further submit that the appellant has good case on merits and being a lady, she could not approach the Court within limitation. He would pray to allow the -2- application (I.A. No.1). 3) On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Tulsyan. 4) On due consideration, the same is allowed. 5) Delay of 571 days in filing instant appeal is hereby condoned. 6) Heard on admission. 7) The appellant/claimant has challenged the award passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar place Jagdalpur(C.G.) in Claim Case No.105/2021 dated 12.09.2022, whereby, learned Tribunal passed an award to the extent of Rs.16,33,000/- with interest @ 9% on account of death of Mitesh Pandey. 8) Mr. Tulsyan, counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that on 04.01.2021, motorcycle of Mitesh Pandey was dashed by driver of motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.17/KU/0556 and resultantly, he sustained grievous injuries and died during course of treatment. He would further submit that age of the deceased at the time of accident was 20 years and he was earning Rs.15000/- as he was a driver. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month which is at lower side. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal deducted 50% for personal and living expenses of the deceased whereas looking to the number of the claimants, which were 4, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4 th. He would pray to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation. 9) On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Tulsyan. He would submit that the deceased was unmarried, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly -3- deducted 50% for personal and living expenses of the deceased. He would further submit that the claimant could not prove the fact that the deceased was a driver. Therefore, the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.10,000/- which is higher than Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh prevailing in the year 2021. He would submit that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspect. 11) Admittedly, the age of the deceased namely, Mitesh Pandey was 20 years. The deceased was working as driver. Ex.A/8 has been placed on record to prove this fact. According to Ex.A/8, the deceased was getting salary of Rs.10,000/- and the learned Tribunal has assessed the income placing reliance on Ex.A/8, therefore, the contention made by Mr. Tulsyan cannot be accepted. 12) With regard to 50% deduction, as the deceased was unmarried person, thus, according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% for personal and living expenses of the deceased. 13) Considering the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha