1 2025:CGHC:59749 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 227 of 2023 Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Present Address Office No. 501 And 512, 5th Floor, D.B. City Corporate Park, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Shobha Sahu W/o Late Devendra Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Amrital Bhoi, Ward No. 21 , Adarsh Nagar Mahasamund, P.S. Tahsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Chailesh Sahu S/o Late Devendra Sahu, Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shobha Sahu, R/o Amrital Bhoi, Ward No. 21 , Adarsh Nagar Mahasamund, P.S. Tahsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Vipinlal Sahu S/o Harishankar Sahu, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Jiradabri, P.S. And Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.12.10 10:59:51 +0530 2 4 - Abla Bai Sahu, W/o Vipinlal Sahu, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Jiradabri, P.S. And Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Nikhil Agrawal S/o Subhash Agrawal R/o Village Pithora, P.S. And Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Owner- Cum-Driver Bearing Metador 407 No. C.G. 04-Hv/5677) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 09.12.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 26/07/2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim Case No. H-102/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 44,95,984/- in favour of the respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants for the death of Devendra Sahu, Aged about 33 years, who worked as a Collection Officer at Anurag Agency, Civil Lines, Raipur. 3 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the income of the deceased assessed by the Claims Tribunal is excess and on the higher side as deceased used to get Rs. 14,000/- per month as salary and furthermore, the incentive of Rs. 9,700/- per month granted by the Claims Tribunal has not been proved, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be reduced. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 would support the impugned award and submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. A careful perusal of the record would show that the respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants have filed a certificate (Ex. A/13) issued by Anurag Agency (employer of the deceased) where he used to work before the accident, which shows that deceased received basic salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month and incentive from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month. Mr. Leeladhar Prasad Verma (A.W.-2), Agency Manager of Anurag Agency, has been examined before the Tribunal and he has clearly stated 4 that deceased used to get basic pay of Rs. 12,000/- per month plus incentive in between Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month. He has proved the certificate (Ex. A/13) and he has been cross-examined but nothing has been extracted to hold that deceased was not getting incentive to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month. As such, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly taken basic pay of the deceased as Rs. 12,000/- and an average of Rs. 9,700/- per month as incentive i.e. Rs. 21,700/- as monthly income of the deceased. 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