1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1594 of 2017 1 - Ramesh Haldhar S/o Niducharan Haldhar, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village P.V.07 Chhote Kapasi P.S. Pakhanjur District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, Present Address Singarbhat P.S. And District Kanker, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Sandhya Haldhar W/o Ramesh Haldhar, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village P.V.07 Chhote Kapasi P.S. Pakhanjur District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, Present Address Singarbhat P.S. And District Kanker, Chhattisgarh ..............Claimants, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Dhanna Nand Dehari S/o Ramesh Dehari, Aged About 32 Years R/o Dudh Nadi Colony Kanker District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh ..............Owner Of The Vehicle, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Near RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Adarsh Bal Mandir Punjabi Gurudwara District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh .............Insurance Co., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : None. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/10/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 22.8.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Bastar, Place- Kanker (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 105/2016. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased, late Manoj Haldhar, being his parents. The respondents are the owner and insurer of the questioned Nano car bearing registration No. C.G.-19/BD/7363 at the relevant time of the accident. On 02.02.2016, while the deceased, Manoj Haldhar, was driving the offending vehicle and reached Markatola Ghat, the tire of the vehicle burst, causing an accident. As a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries to various parts of his body and subsequently died. The matter was reported to the concerned police station, and a criminal case was registered. At the time of 3 the incident, the deceased was approximately 25 years old, worked as a driver, and earned Rs. 40,000 per annum, supporting his entire family. Due to the unnatural accidental death of late Manoj Haldhar, the claimants filed a petition before the learned Claims Tribunal, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.). After being served notice, the respondents participated in the proceedings and contested the claim. The Claims Tribunal, based on pleadings and available material, framed five issues for adjudication. Both parties examined their witnesses in support of their claims, and after considering the evidence and records, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- to the claimants vide its award dated 22.08.2017. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in failing to properly appreciate the testimony of the applicant’s witnesses and incorrectly assessed the deceased’s income at Rs. 7,500/- per month, disregarding evidence that the deceased earned Rs. 40,000/- per annum as a driver. The impugned award is thus perverse and bad in law, warranting modification and enhancement. Furthermore, the tribunal wrongly held the claim under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act as not maintainable by relying solely on unsubstantiated oral evidence from the insurance company’s witness, ignoring the lack of documentary proof for the Rs. 7,500/- salary. The counsel highlights that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that claims 4 are maintainable even when income exceeds Rs. 40,000/- per annum, provided the award is limited accordingly. Additionally, the tribunal failed to consider the future prospects of the deceased’s income as mandated by established Supreme Court precedents such as Sarla Verma and Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh, and neglected to award compensation for funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, and estate, which further justifies enhancement of the compensation amount. 4. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 opposes the same. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that the Claims Tribunal has thoroughly examined the evidence and reasonably assessed the deceased’s income and compensation, which the appellants have failed to convincingly challenge with adequate proof. The tribunal has rightly rejected the claim under Section 163(A) based on the lack of substantiation, and its decision aligns with established legal principles. The appellant’s arguments for enhancement, including claims of higher income, future prospects, and additional damages, were not supported by sufficient evidence to justify 5 interfering with the award. Consequently, no error or injustice has been demonstrated that warrants modification, and the impugned award is upheld in the interest of justice. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat