1 CGHC010317492026 2026:CGHC:37616 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1912 of 2026 1 - Ramesh Kumar Sharma S/o Ram Kumar Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Quarter No. 05, Road No. 35, Sector 06, Police Station- Sector-06, Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - Balesh Chouhan S/o Gendlal Chouhan, Aged About 41 Years, R/o L I G 26/31, Ward No. 12, Jawahar Nagar Supela, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration Number CG-04/HD-6486). 2 - Hitesh Jethwa S/o Prabhulal Jethwa R/o Raman Mandir Ward, Fafadih, Post Guang, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration Number CG-04/HD-6486). 3 - Branch Manager Tata A.I.G. Insurance Company Limited, Office At 1st Floor 106, Wellfort Ozone Bilaspur Road, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration Number CG-04/HD-6486). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondents : Not noticed. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board (21.08.2026) SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.08.24 10:24:25 +0530 2 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2026, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 115 days is hereby condoned. 3. Also heard on admission. 4. This is the claimants’ appeal for enhancement against the award dated 15.01.2026 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) in Motor Accident claim case No. 168/2023 whereby a compensation amount of Rs. 2,05,003/- has been awarded in favour of the appellant/claimant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,970/- per month on the basis of the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled labourer, whereas the injured, Ramesh Kumar Sharma, was working as a Supervisor with Ankit Engineering, Bilaspur, and was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is also on the lower side. Hence, it is prayed that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be suitably enhanced by reassessing the income of the deceased and the compensation under the other heads. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7. After scrutinising the evidence, the Tribunal held that the appellant/claimant failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of his work and income. Hence, considering the age of the deceased as 55 years, as reflected in Ex. P-67, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,970/- per month, on the basis of the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled labourer on the date of the accident, i.e., 23.12.2022. After perusal the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that no permanent disability had been established. Although the appellant/injured sustained grievous injuries, including a 3 fracture of the leg, in the accident, the doctor was not examined to establish the nature and extent of the injuries or to prove any permanent or resultant disability arising therefrom. The appellant/injured remained admitted in the hospital for about 12 days. Accordingly, on the aforesaid basis, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads Compensation 01 Towards loss of income for 06 months during treatment (8,970x06) =Rs.53,820/- 02 Towards medical treatment expenses =Rs. 81,183/- 03 Towards attendant during treatment and bed-rest period due to injury caused in accident. =Rs. 20,000/- 04 Towards future medical expenses =Rs. 25,000/- 05 Towards conveyance/transportation charges Rs.10,000/- 06 Towards mental and physical pain Rs. 10,000/- 07 Towards special die/nutritious food Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 2,05,003/- 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge $ourabh