1 CGHC010209972025 2026:CGHC:32692 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1137 of 2025 1 - Santram Kanwar S/o Late Thakur Ram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Vijay Nagar, Dipka, Post Gevra Project, Police Station And Tahsil Dipka, District Korba (C.G.) At Present Main Road Near Ratanpur Market, Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - Vakil Ahmad S/o Mo. Naymuddin Ansari, Aged About 27 Years, R/o J.S. Transport, Plot No. 15, Near Indian Coffee House, T.P. Nagar, Cseb Chowki, District Korba (C.G.) (Driver Of The Vehicle Trailer No. C.G.-12-A.U.-7204). 2 - M/s J.S. Transport Plot No. 15, Near Indian Coffee House, T.P. Nagar, Cseb Chowki, District Korba (C.G.) (Owner Of The Vehicle Trailer No. C.G.-12-A.U.7204). 3 - The National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Upper Of Kenra Bank, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer Of The Vehicle Trailer No. C.G.-12-A.U.-7204). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 &2 : None. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.07.30 10:56:01 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board (29.07.2026) 1. The claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation challenging the award dated 07.11.2024 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 1499/2022, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,51,884/- was awarded as compensation to the appellant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding inadequate compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that, at the time of the accident, the appellant was working as an agriculturist and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. As a result of the accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries to his head and right ankle, remained admitted to J.P. Hospital, Korba (C.G.) for about 20 days, and was unable to perform his agricultural work for about six months. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal under the conventional heads is inadequate and on the lower side. He, therefore, prays that the compensation awarded to the appellant be suitably enhanced. 3. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 5. After scrutinising the evidence, the Tribunal held that the injuries sustained by the appellant were grievous in nature, for which he was admitted to J.P. Hospital for about 20 days. However, there was no fracture among his injuries. The claimant contended that he was working as an agriculturist and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month but failed to produce any documentary 3 evidence in support of his claim. Hence, the Tribunal assessed his income on the basis of the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker on the date of the accident, i.e., 06.04.2022, which was Rs. 9,540/- per month. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads Compensation 01 Towards treatment of injuries sustained in the accident =Rs.68,264/- 02 Towards attendant =Rs. 10,000/- 03 Towards transportation =Rs. 10,000/- 04 Towards nutritious diet =Rs. 10,000/- 05 Towards loss of income for 03 months Rs.28,620/- 06 Towards physical and mental pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs. 1,51,884/- 6. Upon careful consideration of the material available on record, this Court finds that there is no documentary evidence to substantiate the appellant’s claim that he was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month from agricultural work. Further, there is no evidence on record to establish that the appellant had sustained any fracture; the evidence only indicates that he suffered injuries. The Tribunal has duly considered the evidence adduced by the parties and has assessed the compensation in accordance with the material available on record. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just, fair, and reasonable. This Court, therefore, finds no error, illegality, or infirmity in the impugned award warranting any interference. 7. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge $ourabh