1 CGHC010082982025 2026:CGHC:31769 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 586 of 2025 1 - Asha Ram S/o Ramdhar Aged About 33 Years (Nephew Of The Deceased) R/o House No. 209, Sadakpara, Ward No. 07, Police Station- Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Naresh Kumar Janghel S/o Kriparam Janghel R/o House No. 351, Railway Station, Lodhipara, Near Shiv Mandir, Ward No. 27 Indira Gandhi Ward, Police Station- Ganj, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)(Driver Of Inova Car Registration No. Cg-04/th-2648) 2 - Teekaram Janghel S/o Mannu Janghel Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 14/602, Railway Station, Lodhipara, Near Shiv Mandir, Ward No. 27 Indira Gandhi Ward, Police Station- Ganj, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) (Owner Of Inova Car Registration No. Cg-04/th- 2648) 3 - Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Address- Second Floor, Shiv Mohan Building, Vidhansabha Road, Pandri, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Insurance Company Of Inova Car Registration No. Cg-04/th-2648) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. S. P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Abhishek Choubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ashutosh Rathore, Advocate ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board 24.07.2026 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025 – an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Upon due consideration and for the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed. 3. Delay of 39 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Also heard on admission. 5. This is the claimant’s appeal for enhancement against the award dated 16.10.2024 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kondagaon, District – Kondagaon (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.07/2023 whereby a compensation amount of Rs. 3,91,820/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 9,540/- per month on the basis of the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer for the year 2022. It is contended that the deceased, Hagruram, was working as a contractor and was earning Rs. 500/- per day, i.e., Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting one-half (1/2) of the income towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, whereas the deduction ought to have been one-third (1/3) in accordance with the law laid down by 3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another , (2009) 6 SCC 121 . It is, therefore, submitted that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed by treating him as a skilled worker, and the deduction towards personal and living expenses should have been one-third (1/3) instead of one-half (1/2). Accordingly, it is prayed that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 8. After scrutinizing the record, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Innova car bearing Registration No. CG-04-TH-2648 by its driver, Naresh Kumar Janghel (respondent No. 1), which was owned by Teekaram Janghel (respondent No. 2). It is further evident from the record that the claimant is the nephew (भतीजा) of the deceased. The deceased, Hagruram, aged about 70 years, who was walking in front of his house at the time of the accident, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was working as a contractor and was earning Rs. 500/- per day, i.e., Rs. 15,000/- per month; however, no documentary evidence was produced in support of the said claim. Consequently, the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 9,540/-, being the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer prevailing on the date of 4 the accident, i.e., 29.07.2022. Further, considering the age of the deceased as 70 years, as reflected in Ex. P-3, Ex. P-5 and Ex. P- 6, the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier of 5. So far as the deduction towards personal and living expenses is concerned, the deceased had neither spouse nor any children. The claimant, who is only the nephew (भतीजा) of the deceased. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal rightly deducted one-half (1/2) of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. Accordingly, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimants as under: Sl. No. Heads Compensation 01 Annual income of the deceased (9,540x12) = Rs.1,14,480/- 02 Deduction of 1/2nd i.e. Rs. 57,240/- for personal expenses (Rs.1,14,480-57,240) =Rs. 57,240/- 03 Total loss of dependency after applying multiplier of 5 (57,240 x 5) =Rs. 2,86,200/- 04 Future Prospect 10% (=28,600/-) =Rs.28,620 05 Towards funeral expenses =Rs.16,500/- 06 Towards loss of estate =Rs. 16,500/- 07 Towards loss of love and affection to claimant =Rs. 44,000/- Total Rs. 3,91,820/- 9. On a careful consideration of the material available on record, it is evident that no documentary evidence has been produced to establish that the deceased was employed as a skilled or semi- skilled labourer. The learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the 5 income, has correctly applied the multiplier as well as the deduction of 1/2. As such, this Court finds that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. There is no infirmity in the impugned award warranting interference. 10. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Saxena