1 CGHC010095312024 2026:CGHC:31043 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No.581 of 2024 1. Renubai Agrawal W/o. Late Shri Kaml Kishore Agrawal, Aged About 39 Years 2. Aman Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Kamal Agrawal Aged About 19 Years 3. Akash Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Kamal Kishore Agrawal, Aged About 18 Years All are R/o Village-Shivrinarayan, Tehsil- Navagarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). Appellants/Claimants versus 1. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Ramlal R/o. Basti Mohalla, Jairam Nagar (Masturi), Tehsil- Mastrui District- Bilaspur (C.G.). 495550 ( Rider Of The Offending Moter Cycle, C.G. 10/ A.N-3455 ). 2. Pawan Kumar Baghel, S/o. Shri Narayan Prasad, R/o Ward No.6, Jairam, Tehsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). 495550 (Owner Of The Offending Moter Cycle, C.G. 10/ A.N-3455 ). 3. Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Through- Its Manager ( Lucknow), Address- Office No. T-8, 4th Floor, Gwalani Chambers, Vyapar Vihar Main Road, Bialspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). 495550 ( Insurer Of The Offending Moter Cycle, C.G. 10/ A.N-3455 ) Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Ayush Lall, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Mansi Bande, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 21/07/2026 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “M.V. Act”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the award dated 21.12.2023 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.1078/2019, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of Rs.31,30,446/-, as compensation, on account of death of deceased. 2. Facts of the case are that the appellants/claimants have filed a claim case against under section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 on account of death of deceased namely Kamal Kishore Agrawal, who is husband and father of the claimants. On 24.06.2019 at about 8:30 P.M at Mohtara Byepass, Main Road Bilaspur, the deceased namely Kamal Kishore Agrawal was standing near to his vehicle Mazda, at that Juncture, the offending vehicle Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.C.G.-10-A.N-3455, which was driven by the respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner had hit the deceased Kamal Kishore Agrawal, wherein, the deceased received multiple injuries on his person and died on the spot. Thereafter, a criminal case was registered by the concerned police station. 3. An accident occurred on 24.06.2019 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle ‘motor cycle’ bearing Registration No. C.G.-10- A.N-3455 driven by respondent No.1/driver, which was owned by 3 respondent No.2/owner and insured with the respondent No.3/insurance company. 4. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record, assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.2,73,733/- per annum. Added 25% of future prospects. Considered the fact that the claimants are the wife and sons of the deceased, 1/3rd of the income was deducted towards personal expenses. Considered the age of the deceased as 49 years 8 months and two days, multiplier of 13 was applied. Further, a total amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- has been awarded under other heads. Accordingly, the total compensation of Rs. 31,30,446/- has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal in favour of the claimants with interest @ 9% per annum against respondents jointly and severally, from the date of application. Hence, the appeal is for enhancement. 5. As regards the income of the deceased, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submitted that the income assessed by the Claims Tribunal was on the lower side. It was pleaded by the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month from the food grains and provision business. However, no documentary evidence in support thereof was produced. 6. The Claims Tribunal on the basis of income tax return vide Ex-P/21 assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,73,733/- per annum, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the said assessment is just and proper and does not calls for any interference by this Court. 4 7. In view of the above, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants that the Tribunal has assessed a lesser income of the deceased is not acceptable. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants being devoid of merit and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Nirala