1 2026:CGHC:4891 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2006 of 2024 1. Sunita Vishwakarma W/o Late Vikash Vishwakarma Aged About 38 Years R/o Badaipara Mainroad, Near Hanuman Temple, P.S. Aazad Chowk, Tah. And Distt. - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Anurag Vishwakarma S/o Late Vikash Vishwakarma Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1 Sunita Vishwakarma, R/o Badaipara Mainroad, Near Hanuman Temple, P.S. Aazad Chowk, Tah. And Distt. - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Ku. Swarna Vishwakarma D/o Late Vikash Vishwakarma Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1 Sunita Vishwakarma, R/o Badaipara Mainroad, Near Hanuman Temple, P.S. Aazad Chowk, Tah. And Distt. - Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Shivkumar Vishwakarma S/o Late Ramadhar Vishwakarma Aged About 76 Years R/o Badaipara Mainroad, Near Hanuman Temple, P.S. Aazad Chowk, Tah. And Distt. - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Vijay Sahu S/o Sunil Sahu R/o Zorapara, Sharda Chowk, Ward No. - 37, Raipur P.S. - Moudhapara, Dist. - Raipur Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Car No. C.G.-04-Dz-5553) 2. Mohan Yadav S/o Sugrasen Yadav R/o House No. 423935, Nehru Nagar, Behind Budatalab Bye Pass Road, Raipur, P.S. Purani Basti, Dist. - Raipur Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner Of Car No. C.G.-04-Dz-5553) 3. Sheikh Aabid S/o Sheikh Ismile R/o House No. - 13/173, Shanker Chowk Sadar Bazar, Nayapara Raipur, Tah. And Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insured Owner Of Car No. C.G.-04-Dz-5553) 4. Cholamandalam S.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through In Charge Officer, Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.01.29 17:08:58 +0530 2 Company Ltd. Second Floor, Simran Tower, Behind L.I.C. Building, Pandari Road, Raipur, Distt. - Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Car No. C.G.-04-Dz-5553) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Satyendra Srivas, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Sangeet Kushwaha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 29.1.2026 1) By way of this appeal, claimants have challenged the award passed by the Seventh Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 1157/2021 dated 26.6.2024 whereby learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 27,28,900/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Vikas Vishwakarma. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 3.9.2021 at about 5:40 am, motorcycle of deceased was dashed by offending vehicle – Car bearing registration No. CG-04-DZ-5553. In the accident, Vikas Vishwakarma sustained grievous injuries and died during course of treatment. Claimants, who are the widow, children and father of deceased filed claim case claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,35,000/-. They pleaded that age of the deceased was 41 years ; he was working as Technician at Navbharat Press, Raipur ; he was also engaged in carpentery work and used to earn Rs. 40,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter, award was passed. 3 3) Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that deceased was a technician as well as carpenter and used to earn Rs. 40,000/- per month but learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income to the tune of Rs. 15,500/- solely on the basis of salary slips (Ex. P/12 and P/13). He further submits that learned Tribunal has committed error of law in not assessing the income from carpentry work while computing the monthly income of deceased. He prays to modify the award accordingly. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose. He submits that claimants failed to prove that deceased was a carpenter and no evidence was led in this regard, therefore learned Tribunal rightly arrived at the figure of Rs. 15,500/- placing reliance on the salary slips (Ex. P/12 and P/13) as the monthly income of deceased. He further submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimants cannot be said to be on lower side, rather it is just and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any interference. 5) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and carefully perused the documents placed on record. 6) A careful perusal of record would show that claimants pleaded that deceased was a technician as well as carpenter. They also 4 placed on record the salary slips (Ex. P/12 and P/13) issued by Navbharat Press. Learned Tribunal considered the salary slips and assessed the monthly income of deceased to be Rs. 15,500/- per month. With regard to carpentry work, claimants failed to lead any documentary evidence. Learned Tribunal has recorded a finding in this regard that there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record to prove that deceased was a carpenter. Smt. Sunita Vishwakarma (AW/1), wife of deceased stated on affidavit that her husband was earning Rs. 35,000/- working as carpenter. However, in cross-examination she admitted that she could not lead documentary evidence to prove the same. 7) From the discussion made hereinabove, it is quite clear that no evidence was led by the claimants to prove that deceased was a carpenter. It is well settled principle of law that in absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the deceased was working two jobs at the same time. In the present case also, it cannot be presumed that deceased was a technician and carpenter at the same time. 8) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no case is made out to interfere with the award impugned. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a