1 2025:CGHC:38947 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 793 of 2025  United Insurance Company Limited, Through Manager, Bramh Road, Near Kumkum Hotel, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Meera Sidar W/o Late Ishwarilal Sidar Aged About 33 Years R/o. Village Bhojpur, Post Office Kirari (Bhojpur), Tahsil And P.S. Dabhra, Presently Residing At Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)..........Appellant No. 1 2. Minor Dipesh Sidar S/o. Late Ishwarilal Sidar Aged About 4 Years Through Legal Guardian Non-Applicant No. 1, Mother Smt. Meera Sidar R/o. Village Bhojpur, Post Office Kirari (Bhojpur), Tahsil And P.S. Dabhra, Presently Residing At Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)........Appellant No. 2 3. Devlal Gond S/o. Shri Dhaneshwar Gond Aged About 32 Years R/o. Ludara, Nawapara, P.S. Ludara, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh..........(Respondent No. 1) 4. Sanjay Tamrakar S/o. Shri Shivshankar Tamrakar, R/o. Jodhapipal, Near Kumkum Hotel, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh...........Respondent No. 2 ...Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Non-applicant No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate along with Mr. Shubham Agarwal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.08.06 14:36:48 +0530 2 06/08/2025 1) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court in MAC No. 427 of 2021 while revisiting the amount of compensation awarded by the learned MACT, Janjgir deducted 1/4th amount towards personal expenses of the deceased whereas number of dependents in the appeal were two. He prays to modify the order dated 27.06.2025 accordingly. 2) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of non- applicants No. 1 and 2 submits that claim case was filed by four dependents and when award was passed all four dependents were alive. He further submits that thereafter, father of deceased, namely, Prahalad Sidar and mother of deceased, namely, Sagheli Bai died prior to filing of appeal. He contends that this Court has awarded reasonable amount of compensation under all heads and there is no scope for interference. 3) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 4) Taking into consideration the submission made by Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference with the order dated 27.06.2025. Consequently, this applicant fails and is hereby rejected. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya