1 2025:CGHC:51302 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 555 of 2022 Chhatrapal Rajwade S/o Sahibaran Rajwade, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Pandri, Police Station Surajpur, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh).......(Owner Of Tractor Bearing Registration No. C.G.-16-E-1732). ... Appellant versus 1 - Sitaram Rajwade S/o Late Mohan Ram Rajwade, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Pandri, Police Station Surajpur, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)............. (Claimant) 2 - Bahadur Ram Rajwade S/o Sitaram Rajwade, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Pandri, Police Station Surajpur, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)............. (Claimant) 3 - Radhika Rajwade, S/o Sitaram Rajwade, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Pandri, Police Station Surajpur, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)............. (Claimant) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.10.15 15:41:20 +0530 2 4 - Tirath Prasad Rajwade, S/o Hosram Rajwade, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Pandri, Police Station Surajpur, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)...........(Driver Of Tractor Bearing Registration No. C.G.-16e-1732) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondents : None SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 15.10.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle challenging the impugned award dated 07/03/2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Surajpur, District Surajpur in Claim Case No. 116/2021 whereby an amount of Rs. 4,06,000/- has been granted in favour of respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants for the death of Mankunwar, aged about 65 years. 2. Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is not just and proper and is liable to be reduced as no evidence has been brought on record by the claimants to 3 prove the income of the deceased, yet the Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased as Rs. 6,000/- on notional basis which is unsustainbale and bad in law. 3. None appeared on behalf of the respondents, though served. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his submission made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 72,000/- yearly and after making 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased, her yearly income comes around to Rs. 48,000/-. Since the deceased was aged about 65 years on the date of the accident, multiplier of 7 has been applied and as such, loss of dependency comes around to Rs. 3,36,000/- to which Rs. 15,000/- has been granted under loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- has been granted under funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/- has been granted under loss of consortium, thereby, granting total compensation of Rs. 4,06,000/- in favour of respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants, which in my considered opinion, is just and proper, and does not 4 warrant any interference by this Court. I do not find any merit in this appeal. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet