1 2026:CGHC:11076 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1426 of 2023 1. Smt. Bindu Bai Patre W/o Late Suresh Patre, Aged About 30 Years R/o Sambalpur, P.S. Nandghat, Present Address Near Dhan Mandi Torwa, P.S. Torwa, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2. Ku. Rajnandni Patre D/o Late Suresh Patre, Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Bindu Patre, R/o Sambalpur, P.S. Nandghat, Present Address Near Dhan Mandi Torwa, P.S. Torwa, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 3. Sagar Patre S/o Late Suresh Patre, Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Bindu Patre, R/o Sambalpur, P.S. Nandghat, Present Address Near Dhan Mandi Torwa, P.S. Torwa, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 4. Smt. Dulari Patre W/o Ganga Prasad Patre Aged About 52 Years R/o Sambalpur, P.S. Nandghat, Present Address Near Dhan Mandi Torwa, P.S. Torwa, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 5. Ganga Prasad Patre S/o Late Surit Patre, Aged About 54 Years R/o Sambalpur, P.S. Nandghat, Present Address Near Dhan Mandi Torwa, P.S. Torwa, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Dileshwar Rajak S/o Pardeshi Rajak Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Jhilga, Post - Putpura, Chowki Maro, P.S. Nandghat, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G. - 28 K- 0957) 2. Devnarayan Rajak S/o Shri Goutiraha Rajak R/o Village Jhilga, Post Putpura Ward No. 14, Chowki Maro, P.S. Nandghat, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G. - 28 K – 0957) 3. Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, 4th Floor, Near I.C.I.C.I. Bank , Vyapar Vihar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.- 28 K - 0957) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants/Claimants : Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No. 3/ : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate along with Insurance Company Mr. Rahul Singh Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.03.03 16:07:11 +0530 2 Order on Board 03.03 .2026 1. The claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation assailing the judgment and award passed by the learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur passed in Claim Case No. 178/2020 dated 25.01.2023, whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs. 21,49,232/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of death of Suresh Patre. 2. The facts in brief are that on 18.09.2019 while deceased Suresh Patre was returning to village Sonthi on a bicycle, he was dashed by offending motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 28 K 0957. In said accident, he sustained injuries and during course of treatment died on 19.09.2019. The claimants, who are widow, minor children and parents filed claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, wherein, they pleaded that age of the deceased at the time of accident was 30 years and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is also pleaded that the deceased was a Mason. They claimed a sum of Rs. 27,30,000/-. The Insurance company filed reply and took a plea that deceased was dashed by unknown vehicle and he, himself was negligent. Further plea was taken that driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and thereafter, award was passed. 3. Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocate would submit that the learned Tribunal ignored the fact that deceased was a Mason and assessed his income Rs. 8,400/-, which is at lower side. She would contend that sufficient evidence was adduced to prove income of the deceased. She would submit that the learned Tribunal awarded meager amount on conventional heads. She would pray for enhancement of compensation. 3 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate would oppose. He would submit that the claimants failed to adduce documentary evidence to establish the fact that deceased was Mason and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, therefore, the learned Tribunal applied minimum wages matrix and assessed income of the deceased Rs. 8,400/- per month. He would contend that the learned Tribunal granted just and proper compensation on conventional heads. He would submit that appeal deserves to be dismissed as there is no scope of interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Smt. Bindu Patre(AW/1) stated that the deceased was a Mason, but she failed to adduce documentary evidence to establish this fact, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly applied minimum wage matrix and assessed income of the deceased Rs. 8,400/- per month. The learned Tribunal granted 40% future prospects, deducted 1/4th for personal and living expenses of deceased, applied multiplier of 17, further granted Rs. 40,000/- to each of the claimants for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and there is no scope of interference. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant