1 2026:CGHC:27144 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1509 of 2026 1 - Pankaj Sen S/o Lilaram Sen Aged About 14 Years Minor Through His Next Friend Father Lilaram Sen S/o Heeralal Sen, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Patharra Ward No. 14, Thana Tehsil Rajim, District Gariyaband C.G. At Present R/o Village Banrasi, Thana Mana Camp District Raipur C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - Pukhraj Bhatt @ Lakki S/o Ashwani Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Patharra Mandi Road Thana Rajim District Gariyaband C.G. 2 - Remesh Kumar Verma @ Raju S/o Bhushan Lal Verma Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 06, Village Post Sursabandha Thana Rajim District Gariyaband C.G. 3 - Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Officer Rama Trade Centre, 1st, Floor, In Front Of Rejeev Plaza Old Bus Stand, Tehsil District Bilaspur C.G. ... 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 32 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.1277/2024 whereby a compensation amount of Rs. 9,000/- 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 Pankaj Sen sustained injuries in the accident; the Claims Tribunal held that the claimant sustained only simple injuries in the accident as per the finding on Issue No.1, and no cogent evidence, including X-ray reports, hospital admission records, or proof of permanent disability, was produced. The claimant failed to file any documentary proof of income from labour work or medical expenditure, despite claiming an annual income of Rs. 40,000/- and treatment expenses of Rs. 2,00,000/-. In the absence of proof of permanent disability, no compensation towards future loss of income was admissible. Considering the nature of injuries and date of incident, the notional monthly income was assessed at Rs. 6,000/-, and it was just to award Rs. 1,000/- for loss of income during treatment, Rs. 2,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. 1,000/- for special diet and transportation, and Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering. 3 Accordingly, a total compensation of Rs. 9,000/- 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 itself. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge H.L. Sahu