1 CGHC010248732026 2026:CGHC:28976 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1604 of 2026 1 - Smt. Anand Kumari Wife Of Tiwari Shikari, Aged About 53 Years Resident Of Village Matiyari, Police Station And Tahsil Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Tiwari Shikari Son Of Late Bhuvan Lal Maliya, Aged About 58 Years Resident Of Village Matiyari, Police Station And Tahsil Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus 1 - Krishna Kumar Yadav Son Of Ramadhar Yadav, Resident Of Nutan Chowk, Pradhanmantri Awas B-10, Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle No. C G- 10/b L -7429) 2 - Parmeshwar Kenwat Son Of Bajarha Kenwat, Aged About 23 Years Resident Of Kisanpara, Chantideeh, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle No. C G-10/b L-7429) 3 - Magma H. D. I. General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Office No. 501,509-512, 5th Floor, D. B. City Corporate Park, Plat No. 1, Block No.9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (Wrongly Written As Bilaspur) (C.G.) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle No. C G-10/b L-7429) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Applicants : Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal (Order on Board) 10.07.2026 1. Heard on IA No.01, which is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing this appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 3. Delay of 02 days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Also heard on main appeal. 5. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellants- Claimants are seeking enhancement of amount of compensation by challenging the impugned award dt. 24.03.2026, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.15,54,288/- as compensation alongwith 09% interest per annum on account of death of Rajeshwar Shikari. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the present case. The tribunal has wrongly calculated the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.9,960/-, whereas it ought to have been Rs.15,000/-, as the deceased used to work as mason and the entire family was dependent upon him. As such, the impugned award is liable to be modified and amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 8. In the case at hand, deceased- Rajeshwar Shikari died in a road accident took place on 23.04.2023 and, for which, the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.15,54,288/- as compensation alongwith 09% interest per annum to the claimants/appellants. It is the plea of the appellant that at the time of accident the deceased used to work as Mason and, from where, he used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month, but the 3 learned trial Court has wrongly taken the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.9,960/-. However, a careful perusal of the impugned award would show that the learned tribunal has calculated the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.9,960/- on the basis of the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh and even no documentary evidence has been led by the claimants to show that the deceased used work as Mason and earn monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. As such, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said calculation done by the learned Tribunal and, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the claims tribunal is just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present and I do not consider it a fit case warranting interference in the impugned award. 9. Accordingly, the present appeal of the appellants is liable to be and is hereby dismissed on admission stage. sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge s@if