1 2026:CGHC:27143 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1507 of 2026 1 - Lilaram Sen S/o Heeralal Sen Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Patharra, Ward No. 14, Thana/ Tahsil - Rajim, Distt. Gariyaband Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village Banrasi, Thana Mana Camp, Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh (Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1 - Pukhraj Bhatt @ Lakki S/o Ashwani Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Patharra, Mandi Road, Thana Rajim, Distt. Gariyaband Chhattisgarh (Driver) 2 - Ramesh Kumar Verma @ Raju S/o Bhushan Lal Verma Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 06, Village/ Post - Sursabandha, Thana Rajim, Distt. Gariyaband Chhattisgarh (Owner) 3 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Rama Trade Centre, 1st Floor, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Tahsil/ Distt Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurer) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate. For Respondents : Not noticed. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board (02.07.2026) 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2026, application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. Upon due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No. 01/2026 is allowed and delay of 22 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.07.03 14:33:55 +0530 2 3. Also heard on admission. 4. This is the claimant’s appeal for enhancement against the award dated 18.02.2026 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Motor Accident claim case No.1274/2024 whereby a compensation amount of Rs. 13,050/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding recorded regarding income and dependency in the order impugned is bad in law and liable to be set aside, which relates to future income in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajesh & Ors vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., reported in 2013(9) SCC 54. As such, the awarded compensation is liable to be enhanced suitably. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence, held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of a vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-PF-7336 by its driver, Pukhraj Bhatta @ Lakki – respondent No.1 herein; appellant Lilaram Sen sustained injuries in the accident; the Claims Tribunal held that the claimant Leelaram Sen (AW-01) alleged fracture of the right hand, shoulder injury and other injuries from the accident, and claimed treatment at PHC Mainpur, PHC Rajim, and Life Care Hospital, Rajim. The Tribunal further found that in cross-examination, the claimant admitted to not filing any hospital admission records, and only one medical bill of Rs. 50/- [Ex.P-13] was produced. Further, it is held that no receipts/bills for medicines were filed for the OPD/treatment slips of CHC Mainpur, Shri Jagannath Hospital, and Laxmi Mata Hospital, Rajim. The claimant alleged an annual income of Rs. 40,000/- from labour work and Rs. 10,000/- loss due to attending his injured daughter, but no cogent evidence was adduced to prove income, work, or expenditure on treatment. The claimant admitted in para 7 of cross-examination that no 3 documents of work and income were filed, and no permanent disability certificate was produced to prove the inability to work. It is found that permanent disability was not proved, and therefore, no compensation towards loss of future income was warranted. However, having regard to the treatment slips on record and the nature of injuries, the Tribunal held that an estimated amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses was just and reasonable. Considering the year of the accident, 2024, the Tribunal held it just to award Rs. 2,000/- towards loss of income during treatment, Rs. 1,000/- towards special diet and transportation, and Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering. Accordingly, a total compensation of Rs. 13,050/- under various heads, including Rs. 50/- as per Ex.P-13, has been awarded. 8. Having carefully perused the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has judiciously appreciated the evidence. The quantum of compensation awarded is fair and proper. There is no legal or factual infirmity in the impugned award calling for interference. 9. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge H.L. Sahu