1 2025:CGHC:43965 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2239 of 2019 1 - Smt. Somari Wd/o. Late Mosu Ram Aged About 38 Years R/o. Padarguda Para Village Nadisagar P.S. Ghotiya District Bastar Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Madhuram Mourya S/o Late Parsadi Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Pallichakwa P.S. Bandaji District Bastar Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Vehicle)...............Non Claimant, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Botiram Kashyap (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 18-07-2025 3 - The Branch Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Near Jhankar Talkies Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh (Insurer)................Non-Claimant, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant :Mr. Vikash Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 :Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 Though Served. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 29/08/2025 Challenge in this appeal is to an award dated 29.07.2019 passed in Claim Case No. 76/2013 by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, CG by which against a claim of Rs. 26,85,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 7,15,400/- in favour of the appellant on account of death of the deceased 2 Devchand Kashyap in an accident that took place on 17.05.2010 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration No. CG 17/NM 0001 by respondent No. 1, owned by deceased respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 / insurance company. 2. As per pleading of the claim application, the deceased died on account of the said accident, he was a labour and was earning Rs. 6000/- per month. 3. The claim application was resisted by the respondent No. 1 and deceased respondent No. 2 and denied the averments of the claim application and respondent No. 3 has also filed its written statement and denied the averments of the claim application and also pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license which is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 4. On the basis of above board pleading, the learned Tribunal framed four issues and decided the same in favour of the appellant and awarding the compensation has stated above. However, the issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the insurance company and the insurance company was exonerated from payment of compensation. 5. Initially the claim application was filed by the parents of the deceased but during the pendency of the claim application the father of the deceased passed away and his name was deleted from the cause title. During the pendency of this appeal, respondent No. 2 /owner also passed away and his name was deleted and as no legal representative could be brought on record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant submits that the amount of compensation is on the lower side which requires suitable enhancement. 3 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the just compensation has been awarded hence no interference is warranted. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record. 9. The age of the deceased was found to be 19 yeas and his income was found to be Rs. 4500 and after adding future prospect of 40%, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 6,80,400/- for loss of dependency, Rs. 20,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. 10. Though learned counsel for the appellant tried to persuaded this Court deceased was earning of Rs. 6,000/- per month but barring the oral statement, no evidence is brought on record. The learned Tribunal on meticulous examination of the evidence considered his notional income of the deceased to Rs. 4500/-. In the opinion of this Court looking to the date of accident and age of the deceased cannot be said to be on the lower side. Apart from this as stated above, future prospect is also added, and just compensation appears to have been awarded by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, this Court does not find any good ground warranting interference in this appeal filed by the appellant. 11. Accordingly, Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan