1 2025:CGHC:59693 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 40 of 2019 1. Mohammad Alimuddin S/o Late Shri Mohammad Sulemaan Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 20 Rampur, Baikunthpurm District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2. Mohammad Mustakeem S/o Late Shri Sulemaan Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 20 Rampur, Baikunthpurm District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3. Wajida D/o Late Mohammad Sulemaan Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 20 Rampur, Baikunthpurm District Koriya Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Sumant Kumar Pandaya S/o Mahesh Pandaya Aged About 27 Years R/o Shantinagar, Bishrampur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, At Present Resident Of Village Sareaa, Post Takipur, Police Station Maharajganj, District Chapra. 2. Basant Paswan S/o Ramkeshram Paswan Aged About 45 Years R/o Shantinagar, Bishrampur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3. United India Insurance Company Limited Near Kumkum Hotel, Brahm Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : None, though served For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.12.10 13:33:43 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 9-12-2025 1) The claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation against the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Baikunthpur, District - Koriya in MACT No. 81/2017 dated 9.10.2018 whereby learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,40,000/- with interest @ 7.5% on account of death of Mohammad Sulemaan. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 24.6.2017, deceased Mohammed Sulemaan met with an accident when the offending vehicle Trailer bearing registration No. CG-12-S-2788 dashed him. In the accident, he sustained grievous injuries and died during course of treatment. Claimants, who are the children of the deceased moved claim application and pleaded that at the time of accident, age of deceased was 65 years and he used to earn Rs. 25,000/- per month. They claimed a sum of Rs. 35,50,500/-. They further pleaded that deceased was running a provision store and he was contractor too. Respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Insurance Company filed reply and denied the averments made in claim application. They pleaded that age of deceased was 65-70 years and he had no independent source of income. They further pleaded that claimants being major were not dependent on the income of the deceased. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties 3 led evidence and thereafter award was passed. 3) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Tribunal committed error of law while assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs. 6,000/- per month. He further submits that deceased was running a provision store and he was contractor too, therefore learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at lower side. He prays to enhance the amount of compensation. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that Claims Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6) Perusal of the record would show that initially, claim case was filed by the widow, two major sons and a daughter of the deceased ; during pendency of claim case, the widow of the deceased passed away. Mohd. Alimuddin (AW/1) has admitted that he is a contractor and his father (deceased) worked along with him. This witness deposed that deceased used to manage the provision store in the evening time. This witness further deposed that a power of attorney (P/17-C) was issued in favor of the deceased to look after the contract work. 4 7) The claimants could not adduce documentary evidence to establish the income of the deceased. Document P/16-C describes Mohd. Alimuddin as a ‘Grade – D Contractor’. The claimants failed to substantiate the fact that provision store was registered with the name of deceased. They also failed to submit income tax returns to establish the income of the deceased. 8) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mr. R.D. Hattangadi Versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others1 held that, “in its very nature whenever a Tribunal or a Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involved some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed in objective standards.” 9) Even for the sake of argument if the deceased was looking after the contract work and provision store, the claimants have neither pleaded nor proved the fact that after death of their father, the transactions in the business are gradually getting down or are increasing. Involvement of the deceased in the provision shop cannot be denied but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire loss of business cannot be attributed to death of the deceased who used to manage the affairs of the shop. There would be loss of management and claimants would be entitled to get compensation for loss of management and not for loss of 1. AIR 1995 SC 755 5 income. 10) In absence of clinching evidence, learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 6,000/- per month ; deducted 1/4th dependency towards personal and living expenses and applied multiplier of 5 looking to the age of deceased. In my opinion, the assessment of income appears to be just and proper. Learned Tribunal has also awarded reasonable compensation under conventional heads. 11) In view of the discussion made herein-above, in my opinion, learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation which does not warrant any interference. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE A j i n k y a