1 2025:CGHC:40406 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1723 of 2019 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Lmited Through Branch Manager, Plot No. 01, 4th Floor, Near Maruti Heights, G.E. Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Bus No. C.G. 11/a/7554), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Meena Soni Wd/o Late Suresh Soni Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bagudega, Post Bagudega, Thana And Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Sonmati W/o Late Shivprasad Soni Aged About 35 Years S/o Baiga, R/o Village Bagudega, Post Bagudega, Thana And Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Priya Soni D/o Late Suresh Soni Aged About 10 Years Minor, Represented Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Meena Soni W/o Late Suresh Soni, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Bagudega, Post Bagudega, Thana And Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Riya Soni D/o Late Suresh Soni Aged About 7 Years Minor, Represented Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Meena Soni W/o Late Suresh Soni, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Bagudega, Post Bagudega, Thana And Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ku. Pragya Soni D/o Late Suresh Soni Aged About 4 Years Minor, Represented Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Meena Soni W/o Late Suresh Soni, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Bagudega, Post Bagudega, Thana And Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 6 - Ku. Prachi Soni D/o Late Suresh Soni Aged About 2 Years Minor, Represented Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Meena Soni W/o Late Suresh Soni, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Bagudega, Post Bagudega, Thana And Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 7 - Ramu Soni S/o Chaitram Sonwani R/o Village Chaitma, Gopalpur, Thana, Tahsil And Post Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. Present Address C/o Mahadev Transport, Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Bus No. C.G. 11/a/7554), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 8 - Sunil Kumar Jayta S/o Udaylal Jayta Aged About 24 Years R/o Gopalpur, Thana And Tahsil Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Bus No. C.G. 11/a/7554), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 6 : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 12/08/2025 1. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the liability to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 18,55,600/- fastened upon it by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gharghoda, District - Raigarh (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 30.03.2019 in Claim Case No. 29/2018. 2. This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award on the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in favour of the Respondents No. 1 to 6/Claimants pleading therein that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs. 8,500/- per month without there being any substantive evidence. In view of the grounds raised by the counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company challenging the 3 impugned award, this Court is not dealing with the facts of the accident as pleaded in the claim application, reply filed by the respective parties and adverted by the learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned award, however, only dealing with the grounds as raised by the counsel for the appellant challenging the quantum of compensation on the ground of assessing income of the deceased to be on higher side. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal even after recording a finding that the claimants could not be able to prove income of the deceased as Rs. 8,500/- per month from the work of Driver of Bolero Vehicle have assessed the income as Rs. 8,500/- per month without there being any cogent and admissible evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 6 would oppose the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence brought on by the respective parties have determined income of deceased and computed compensation which does not call for any interference. The claimants in the claim application have pleaded income of the deceased as Rs. 12,000/- per month whereas, income assessed is only Rs. 8,500/- per month. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the claim case. 6. The claimants in the claim application have pleaded occupation of the deceased to be Driver, business of sale and purchase of paddy and agricultural work. Income has been shown to be Rs. 12,000/- per month. To prove income from the work of Driver, claimants have examined Jay Kumar Patel (AW – 3), the person who engaged in the 4 business of Kirana Shop. In his evidence, he has stated that he had engaged late Suresh Soni as Driver, was paying Rs. 8,500/- per month as salary and Rs. 50 per day as allowance. He also produced the copy of the register as Ex. P/20-C making entries of the payment made to the deceased. 7. Perusal of the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period from 01.04.2019 till 30.03.2020, the wages fixed for the Unskilled Labourer for ‘B’ zone area was Rs. 8,660/- and Rs. 10,090/- for Skilled Labourer. In the aforementioned facts of the case and considering the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as discussed above, in the opinion of this Court, the income of the deceased as assessed by the learned Claims Tribual as Rs. 8,500/- per month cannot be said to be on higher side. 8. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any good ground in this appeal to interfere with the impunged awarded passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. The appeal being sans merit is liable to be and accordingly, dismissed. 9. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey