1 CGHC010453232024 2026:CGHC:31766 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 48 of 2025 1 - Smt. Durga Wd/o Late Laxman Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Mannadol, Tifra, Sirgitti, Police Station- Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Budhari Bai Pal W/o Late Melaram Pal Aged About 66 Years Both R/o Village- Mannadol, Tifra, Sirgitti, Police Station- Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellants versus 1 - Madhukar Sahu S/o Akru Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o- Ward No.- 02, Sambalpur, Tahsil- Nawagarh, Police Station- Bemetara (Chhattisgarh)(Driver Of The Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G.-28-K-5728) 2 - Chandra Kumar Sahu S/o Sundar Lal Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village- Bhatgaon, Police Station- City Kotwali, Mungeli, District- Mungeli (Chhattisgarh)(Owner Of The Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G.-28-K-5728) 3 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombord Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office- V.R. Plaza, Near Deep Hotal, Link Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G.- 28-K-5728) ... Respondents Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 For Appellants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mrs. Gunjan Rani Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Judgement on Board (24.07.2026) 1. This is the claimants’ appeal for enhancement against the award dated 15.10.2024 passed by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) in Motor Accident claim case No. 491/2021 whereby a compensation amount of Rs. 17,69,345/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 8,600 per month based on the minimum wages of an unskilled labourer for the year 2019. According to the appellant, the deceased Laxman Pal was a building contractor and was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. Hence, the income should have been assessed for skilled labour. On this ground, it is prayed that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record rightly awarded the compensation amount. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 3 5. After scrutinizing the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of a motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-28-K-5728 by its driver, Madhukar Sahu- respondent No.1, owned by Chandrakumar Sahu – respondent No. 2 herein; The deceased Laxman Pal, who was riding a motorcycle sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and died. The claimants claimed that the deceased was a building contractor and was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month, but failed to produce any documentary evidence. Hence, the Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased as 30 years as per postmortem report Ex. P/4, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,600/- per month as per the minimum wages for an unskilled labourer on the date of accident i.e. 31.10.2019 Accordingly, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimants as under: Sl. No. Heads Compensation 01. Monthly income per month Rs. 8,600/- 02. Deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses (8,600 x1/3) Rs. 2867/- 03. Monthly income after deduction (8,600- 2867) Rs.5,733/- 04. Annual income of the deceased (5,733 x12) Rs. 68,1796/- 05. Total loss of dependency after applying multiplier of 17 (68,176x17) Rs.11,69,532/- 06. After adding 40% of Rs. 11,69,532 for future prospect in loss of income Rs. 4,67,813/- 07. Towards funeral expenses Rs.18,000/- 08. Towards loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- 09 Towards loss of consortium Rs. 96,000/- Total Rs.17,69,345/ - 4 6. On a careful consideration of the material on record, it is apparent that no documentary evidence is available to hold that the deceased was a skilled or semi-skilled labourer. 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. 7. 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 AMIT PATEL