1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 927 of 2025  United India Insurance Company Limited, Head Office 24 White Road Chennai 600014 Through- Manager, T.P.Hub Bilaspur, L.I.C. Building, 1st Floor, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Smt. Bhime Muchaki W/o Late Somdu Muchaki Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Mokpal (Dongriguda Para) P.S. Kuakonda, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 2. Shri Pandu Muchaki S/o Late Masa Muchaki Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Mokpal (Dongriguda Para) P.S. Kuakonda, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 3. Smt. Soni Muchaki W/o Shri Pandu Muchaki Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Mokpal (Dongriguda Para) P.S. Kuakonda, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 4. Ku. Reena Muchaki D/o Shri Pandu Muchaki Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Mokpal (Dongriguda Para) P.S. Kuakonda, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 5. Dewaram Muchaki S/o Shri Pandu Muchaki Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Soni Muchaki R/o Village Mokpal (Dongriguda Para) P.S. Kuakonda, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.11.13 16:24:24 +0530 2 6. Masa Muchaki S/o Shri Pandu Muchaki Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Soni Muchakir/o Village Mokpal (Dongriguda Para) P.S. Kuakonda, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 7. Ku. Jogi Muchaki D/o Shri Pandu Muchaki Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Soni Muchaki R/o Village Mokpal (Dongriguda Para) P.S. Kuakonda, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. (Res. No. 1 To 7 Are Claimants) 8. Mukesh Kumar Sethiya S/o Shivram Sethiya Aged About 30 Years Village Balpeth (Daralpara), Post Balpeth, P.S. Dantewada, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 9. Salem Mohammad Ismail S/o Salem Mohammad Ibrahim, Village- Mailawada, P.S. Kuakonda, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondents : None, though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 12-11-2025 1) Heard on admission. 2) By way of this appeal, Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada, District – South Bastar Dantewada in Claim Case No. 20/2024 dated 21.11.2024, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 22,91,232/- along with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Somdu Muchaki. 3 3) Facts of the present case are that on 25.7.2023 at about 5:30 p.m., Masa Nedi and Somdu Muchaki were travelling on motorcycle bearing registration No. AP-20-AV-9451 as pilion riders. They had gone to Geedam and while returning to their home at Mokpal, a Bolero pickup vehicle bearing registration No. CG-18-N-2912 dashed the motorcycle. In the accident, Masa Nedi and Somdu Muchaki sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment. Claimants who are parents, widow and four siblings of the deceased Somdu Muchaki, filed the claim case claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 29,98,000/-. Insurance Company as well as driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed reply and denied the averments made in claim application. Claims Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and award impugned was passed. 4) Mr. P.R. Patankar, counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that claim case has been filed by the parents, widow and four siblings of the deceased. He further submits that as father of the deceased is alive, therefore it cannot be presumed that siblings of the deceased were dependent on income of the deceased but learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider this aspect. He contends that learned Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/5th dependency towards personal and living expenses of the deceased whereas it should have been 1/3rd. He prays to modify the award impugned. 4 5) Heard. 6) Perusal of the record would show that Insurance Company failed to plead and prove the fact that siblings of the deceased were not dependent on income of the deceased and no oral or documentary evidence was adduced before the learned Claims Tribunal to prove the same. Admittedly, there are four siblings of the deceased, out of which three were minor and younger unmarried sister was major at the time of filing claim case. It appears that deceased was the elder son of the family, therefore it can be presumed that younger siblings of the deceased were dependent on his income, particularly in absence of any oral or documentary evidence to prove the contrary. 7) With regard to quantum of compensation, learned Claims Tribunal has considered the deceased to be an unskilled laborer and applied the minimum wage matrix to assess the monthly income of the deceased and such finding does not require interference. Further, learned Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/5th dependency towards personal and living expenses of the deceased looking to the number of dependents and applied multiplier of 17 as the age of deceased was considered to be 30 years at the time accident. On conventional heads, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation which does not warrant any interference. 5 8) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no case is made out to interfere with the award impugned. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a