1 2025:CGHC:45455 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2183 of 2019 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Divisional Forest Officer, Divisional Forest Office Durg, Tehsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Ankaluram S/o Shri Bisatram Yadav Aged About 47 Years R/o Village - Sankra, Police Station - Somni, Tehsil And District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Ahilya Bai W/o Ankaluram Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Sankra, Police Station - Somni, Tehsil And District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rajendra Kumar S/o Ankaluram Yadav Aged About 14 Years ( Minor ) Through - Legal Guardian Shri Ankaluram Yadav ( Father ) , R/o Village - Sankra, Police Station - Somni, Tehsil And District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Udai Singh Parihar, S/o Late Amrat Singh Parihar, Aged About 56 Years R/o Kachnar Block D - 4, Forest Campus Durg, Badi Civil Lines, Ward No. 47 Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant/State : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Shri Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Shri Aman Tamrakar, Advocate on behalf of Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.09.09 15:02:51 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 04/09/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal by the appellant/State is to the award dated 6.7.2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No.161 of 2018. 2. By the impugned award, the learned Claims Tribunal has partly allowed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by respondents No.1 to 3 seeking compensation on account of death of their daughter, namely, Ku. Santoshi Yadav in an accident that occurred on 26.9.2018 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No.HR 55 C 4468 by respondent No.4 owned by the appellant/State. 3. As per pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 22 years. Along with studies, she was involved in networking work and was also imparting education to small children and was earning Rs.12,000 per month. Respondents No.1 to 3 were dependent upon the income of the deceased, therefore, a claim of Rs.35,40,000 was made. 4. The claim application was resisted by respondent No.4/driver as well as by the appellant/State/owner and they denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that exaggerated compensation is claimed. 3 5. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and decided the same and awarded compensation of Rs.15,42,000 in favour of respondents No.1 to 3/claimants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State vehemently argued that the age of the deceased is not proved. Her income has been taken Rs.10,000 per month without any documentary evidence. Compensation on all other heads is on higher side, which requires suitable deduction by this Court. 7. Opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant/State, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3/claimants submitted that just compensation has been awarded. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.4/driver supported the case of the appellant/State. 9. In absence of any documentary evidence, barring the post mortem report, learned Claims Tribunal found the age of the deceased to be 22 years. Therefore, it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is bad in law. 10. Of course, there is no documentary evidence available on record, but, looking to the fact that the deceased was aged about 22 years and according to the pleadings and evidence, apart from studies, she was involved in networking and also imparting education to small children and considering the date of accident, i.e., 26.9.2018, the finding of Rs.10,000 per 4 month income cannot be faulted with, particularly, looking to the fact that the Courts and Tribunals are required to see that just compensation is awarded and it is also to be seen that there is large population of citizen of this country working in unorganised sector having no documentary proof of income. Therefore, this submission is also rejected. This submission is also liable to be rejected on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/2 from the yearly income of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 18 and awarded the compensation of Rs.15,12,000 towards loss of dependency. Even no consortium has been awarded by the Tribunal. 11. I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned award. 12. The appeal thus fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal