1 2025:CGHC:59958 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2322 of 2024 1 - Smt. Priyanka Nishadd W/o Late Anurudhh Nishadd Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And Post Office - Khatta, Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Ashwani Nishadd S/o Late Anurudhh Nishadd Aged About 17 Years (Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt,. Priyanka Nishadd), R/o Village And Post Office - Khatta, Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Bhoj Kumar Nishadd S/o Late Anurudhh Nishadd Aged About 15 Years (Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt,. Priyanka Nishadd), R/o Village And Post Office - Khatta, Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Shyambai Nishadd W/o Late Sukhdev Nishadd Aged About 69 Years R/o Village And Post Office - Khatta, Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Rakesh Kumar Yadav S/o Samar Bahadur Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chakra, Police Station Chandwak, District Jaunpur (U.P.). (Driver Of Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 07 Cg 9500) 2 - Arvind Kumar Yadav S/o Rammurat Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o Shahid Veer Narayan Singh Nagar, Khurshipar Bhilai, Police Station Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 07 Cg 9500) 2 3 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. L.I.C. Building, Commercial Complex, 1st Floor, Infront Of Shyam Square, Pandari, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 07 Cg 9500) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 For Respondent No.3 : : None though served. Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 10/12/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 1, application for condonation of delay. 2. Mr. Kela would submit that this appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation. He would submit that there is a delay of 68 days. He would further submit that due to poverty and ignorance, the appeal could not be preferred within limitation. 3. On the other hand, Mrs. Agrawal, Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions advanced by counsel for the claimants. 4. Taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Kela and the reasons assigned in the application, IA No. 1 is allowed and the delay of 68 days is hereby condoned. 5. Heard on admission. 6. Admit. 7. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3 8. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants/appellants seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 20.06.2024 passed in Claim Case No.186/2022 by the learned Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of ₹17,17,792 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of the death of Aniruddh Nishad. 9. Brief facts are that on 24.11.2022, the deceased Anirudh Nishad was returning home on his motorcycle and when he reached near Tatibandh liquor shop, at about 6:50 pm, the offending truck bearing registration No. CG–07–CG-9500, its driver by driving it rashly and negligently dashed him from back side, as a result, he fell down, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. 10. The claimants/appellants, who are widow, two minor children and mother of the deceased, filed a claim case under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein they pleaded that the age of the deceased was 41 years and he was earning 15,000 per month as he was working ₹ as an Operator in Alankar Private Limited, Raipur. The claimants claimed compensation of 47 lakh. Driver, owner as well as Insurance Company ₹ filed their reply and denied the contents of the claim case. Issues were framed and thereafter the award was passed. 11. Mr. Kela would argue that the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at 9,700, whereas the deceased was working ₹ as an Operator in a private company. He would contend that the deceased was residing in a Grade-B city and the learned Tribunal treated him as an unskilled labourer residing in a Grade-C city; thus, he would pray for enhancement of compensation. 12. On the other hand, Ms. Swati Agrawal, counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would contend that the claimants could not produce evidence to establish the fact that the deceased was working 4 with the company on the post of Operator and was earning ₹15,000/- per month. She would submit that in the absence of documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal rightly treated the deceased as an unskilled labourer and assessed his income by applying the minimum wages matrix. She would argue that on other heads also, the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation; thus, she prays that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13.I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 14. AW–1 Smt. Priyanka Yadav has stated that she could not submit documents with regard to the employment of her husband. AW–2 Mohammad Arif has stated that he was working with the Dolly Contractor as Operator for 4–5 years and therefore he knew the deceased Anirudh Nishad. AW–2 is a witness to the accident. 15.Perusal of the evidence led by the claimants would show that they failed to produce documentary evidence to establish the fact that the deceased was working on the post of Operator in any company and was earning 15,000 per month. In absence of such evidence, the ₹ Tribunal rightly treated the deceased as an unskilled labourer and assessed his income according to the minimum wages matrix. 16.The Tribunal granted 25% towards future prospects; deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased; applied multiplier of 14; and further granted compensation towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses strictly in accordance with law. 17. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned 5 Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim