1 2025:CGHC:59467 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 106 of 2024 1. Smt. Satvantin Bai Sanvara W/o Late Horilal Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Belpara, Ward No. 06 Thana Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Santosh Kumar S/o Late Horilal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Belpara, Ward No. 06 Thana Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Sanat Kumar S/o Ganesh Ram Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sis, House No. 284, Diprapara, Thana Ratanpur Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 10/r/1525) 2. Lav Jaiswal S/o Sitaram Jaiswal Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Beltara, Thana Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 10/r/1525) 3. Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Rama Trade Center 2nd Floor, Old Bus Stand Bilaspur In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Thana Civil Line Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 10/r/1525) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No. 3/ : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate Insurance Company Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.12 .2025 1. With the consent of the parties matter is heard finally. 2. The claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation challenging the award passed by the learned 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 1751/21 dated 20.04.2023, whereby the learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.12.09 15:44:26 +0530 2 10,10,240/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of death of Horilal in motor accident. 3. Ms. Shaleeni Jangde would submit that on 03.11.2021, the TVS XL motorbike of the deceased Horilal was dashed by the Trailer bearing registration No. CG 10 R 1525, resultantly, he sustained injuries and succumbed to death. She would submit that age of the deceased was 50 years and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. She would submit that the claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- with interest. She would vehemently argue that the learned Claims Tribunal assessed income of the deceased Rs. 9,300/- per month which is at lower side. She would contend that on conventional heads learned Tribunal has granted meager amount. She would pray for enhancement of compensation. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal would submit that the claimants could not lead evidence to prove the fact that the deceased was semi-skilled or skilled labourer or earning fix salary, therefore, the learned Tribunal applied minimum wages matrix prevailing on the date of accident and assessed the income of deceased. He would submit that in the month of November, 2021 the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the State of Chhttisgarh was Rs. 9,280/-, whereas, the learned Tribunal has rounded off figure to Rs. 9,300/-. He would further contend that learned Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased 55 years and applied multiplier of 11, deducted 1/3rd for personal and living expenses and further granted compensation for future prospects, funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium strictly in accordance with the law. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the claimants could not adduce evidence to prove the income of the deceased; therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly assessed the income in accordance with the minimum wages matrix. The learned Tribunal further awarded compensation on conventional heads in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680. The learned Tribunal applied proper multiplier of 11 considering the age of the deceased 55 years, the deduction 1/3rd is also just and proper looking to the number of dependants. 7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed fact, I do not find any good ground to interference with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant