1 CGHC010139412026 2026:CGHC:30223 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 991 of 2026 Virendra Kumar Sinha S/o Late Shatrughan Lal Sinha Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bhalesar, Police Station Mahasamund Tahsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Sachin Sahu S/o Shri Fulsing Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Barondabazar, Police Station, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver and Wwner Vehicle No. CG-06GZ7333). 2 - The Branch Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Forth Maruti Heights, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Vehicle No. Cg06gz7333) ... Respondents For the appellant : Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate For Respondents : ….. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 16.07.2026 2 1. Heard on I.A.No.1 condonation of delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by the affidavit of appellant and since this appeal is preferred by claimant seeking enhancement of award, the delay of 55 days is condoned. Application is allowed. Heard on admission. Records received. 2 This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation and challenging the impugned award dated 07.11.2025. passed by the learned 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, in Claim Case No. H-162/2024 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,43,174/- for the injury sustained by the claimant. 3. As per facts pleaded in claim petition, on 16.06.2024 the Appellant Virendra Kumar Sinha along with his daughter Ku. Shweta Sinha was coming back to his home village Bhalesar from his in-laws’ place on a Passion Pro-Motorcycle. On the way when they reached near Borid turn, Fingeshwar, respondent no.1 who was driving the offending Honda Shine No.C.G.04 DW-7333 in rash and negligent way dashed against the Motor-cycle of the claimant, resultantly appellant Virendra Kumar and his daughter Shweta both fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Shweta became unconscious and succumbed to injuries whereas appellant Virdendra Kumar got treatment in Government Hospital, Fingeshwar and subsequently he was shifted to Soham Hospital, 3 Mahasamund where he had undergone treatment from 16.06.2024 to 20.06.2024. 4. On close scrutiny of evidence and documents placed on record, the Tribunal has granted a total compensation of Rs.1,43,174/- on various heads as per the following table : S.No . Head Amount 01. Medical bills and other heads 67,534/- 02. Transportation 5,000/- 03. Nutritious food 750/- 04. Nursing charges 750/- 05. Physical and Mental Pain 10,000/- 06. Loss of life expectancy 25,000/- 07. Loss of income 31,140/- 08. Damages to the motorcycle 3,000/- Total 1,43,174/- 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has taken the lesser income of deceased and further the amounts granted under other heads are also lesser, as such, the award is liable to be enhanced. 6. In absence of any evidence regarding income and job nature of deceased the Tribunal took his income as Rs.10,380/- based on Collector’s Rate i.e., Rs.346/- per day treating him as unskilled labour and thus worked out the loss of earning to be Rs.31,140/- during treatment for 3 months (10,380 x 3) which cannot be said to be on lower side. Further, the medical bills produced by the appellant from Ex.A-12 4 to A-17 & A-22 were also considered and accordingly Rs.67,534/- was justly granted. Further the amounts granted towards transportation, physical and mental pain, loss of life expectancy and damages to motor cycles cannot be said to be meagre, which needs no enhancement. 7. Now coming to the disability, the Tribunal has observed that no disability certificate was produced by the appellant to prove the permanent disability. Since no document was filed, the tribunal has correctly rejected this head of compensation. 8. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the award passed by the tribunal cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable warranting interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao