1 CGHC010175802025 2026:CGHC:33156 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1027 of 2025 1 - Harbilash Mishra S/o. Late Vinay Mishra Aged About 63 Years R/o. Village - Mahloi, Tahsil - Pusour, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Sulochana Mishra W/o. Harbilash Mishra Aged About 59 Years R/o. Village - Mahloi, Tahsil - Pusour, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Dileshwar Sao S/o. Bhojram Sao Aged About 39 Years Occupation - Vehicle Driver, R/o. Ramnagar, Kodatarai, Chowki- Jutmil, Police Station - Kotwali, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Gyan Lal @ Gyanlata Sahu S/o. Bhojram Sahu Aged About 41 Years Occupation - Vehicle Owner, R/o. Ward No. 20, Atal Chowk, Kodatarai, Police Station Police Chowki, Jutmil, Police Station Kotwali, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Branch Manager Megma H.D.I., General Insurance Company Limited, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant/Claimant : Mr. Prabhat Ku. Saxena, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.08.03 15:53:09 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (31.07.2026) 1. Heard on IA No.01/2025 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal barred by 109 days. 2. This is the claimant’s appeal for enhancement of the award. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Accordingly, the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988"] has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 08.10.2024 passed in Claim Case No. 29/2022, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 17,34,800/- as compensation for the death of Sadhna Mishra, who was aged about 27 years and died in a road accident which occurred on 10.12.2021. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased was selling vegetables and also running tuition classes, thereby earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. However, the Claims Tribunal has assessed her income at Rs. 11,000/- only, which is on the lower side and inadequate. It is, therefore, prayed that the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be suitably 3 enhanced. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company submits that the learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly awarded the compensation. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and calls for no interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants is with regard to the income of the deceased. It is submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 11,000/-, whereas she was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. On perusal of the record, it is found that no documentary evidence has been produced by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of any other material and having regard to the date of accident i.e., 10.12.2021, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 11,000/-. Thus, no interference is warranted on this count. 9. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge -Shubham