1 CGHC010551652025 2026:CGHC:31921 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 68 of 2026 1 - Basanti Sathua W/o Late Suman Sathua Aged About 41 Years R/o Village- Panchghariya Khalishahi, Tahsil And Police Station- Khadopada, District- Nayagarh Odisa. 2 - Manas Sathua S/o Late Suman Sathua Aged About 23 Years R/o Village- Panchghariya Khalishahi, Tahsil And Police Station- Khadopada, District- Nayagarh Odisa. 3 - Tapas Kumar Sathua S/o Late Suman Sathua Aged About 20 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Basanti Sathua, R/o Village- Panchghariya Khalishahi, Tahsil And Police Station- Khadopada, District- Nayagarh Odisa. 4 - Nishamani Sathua W/o Dharmanand Sathua Aged About 66 Years R/o Village- Panchghariya Khalishahi, Tahsil And Police Station- Khadopada, District- Nayagarh Odisa. ... Appellants versus 1 - Bisikeshan Patel S/o Janta Prasad Patel R/o Rajpalpur, Police Station - Basana, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver And Owner Of Scorpio No. C.G. 05 W 9909) Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 2 - United Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, (Division No. 01) United Insurance Company Ltd. Krishana Complex, Kachahari Chauk, Raipur, Jail Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Scorpio No. C.G. 05 W 9909) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Satyendra Srivas, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Judgement on Board (27.07.2026) 1. Heard on 01/2025, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. Upon due consideration and for the reasons assigned in the application duly supported by an affidavit of appellant No.1, the same is allowed. The delay of 127 days is hereby condoned. 3. This is the claimants’ appeal for enhancement against the award dated 09.05.2025 passed by the 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) in Motor Accident claim case No. 1294/2021 whereby a compensation amount of Rs. 15,63,500/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants. 4. 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 2020. According to the appellant, the 3 deceased Suman Sathua was a doctor and was earning Rs. 30,000/- 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. 5. 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7. After scrutinizing the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of a offending vehicle Scorpio bearing Registration No. CG-05-W-9909 by its driver, Bishikeshan Patel/ respondent No.1, who was also the owner of the said vehicle; on 03.01.2020, the deceased Suman Sathua along with other passengers, namely Bhogilal Patel, Santosh Nayak, Santram, and Krishana Patel, was travelling in the offending vehicle near Village Aavradabri on the National Highway. It is alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, as a result whereof it dashed against the divider, causing the accident. In the said accident, they sustained grievous injuries and subsequently the deceased Suman Sathua died during the course of treatment. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was working as a doctor and earning Rs. 4 30,000/- per month. However, no documentary evidence was produced by the claimants to establish the existence of any private clinic run by the deceased, his educational qualifications or his alleged monthly income. In the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence to substantiate the said claim, the Tribunal rightly declined to accept the asserted income of Rs. 30,000/- per month. Hence, the Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased as 45 years as per postmortem report Ex. P/11, 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. 03.01.2020 Accordingly, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimants as under: Sl. No. Heads Compensation 01. Annual income Rs. 1,03,200/- 02. Deduction of 1/4th for personal expenses (Rs. 1,03,200x1/4th) Rs. 25,800/- 03. Annual income after deduction (1,03,200- 25800) Rs.77,400/- 04. Multiplier of 14 (77,400x14) Rs. 10,83,600/- 05. After adding 25% of Rs. 10,83,600/- for future prospect in loss of income Rs. 2,70,900/- 06. Towards funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- 07. Towards loss of estate Rs. 16,500/- 08. Towards loss of consortium (44,000x4) Rs. 1,76,000/- Total Rs. 15,63,500/- 8. On a careful consideration of the material on record, it is apparent that no documentary evidence is available to hold that the 5 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. 9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants being devoid of merit and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at motion stage. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge AMIT PATEL