1 CGHC010323362026 2026:CGHC:38882 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1968 of 2026 1 - Dinesh Sharma S/o Late Radheshyam Sharma Aged About 49 Years Resident Of Ward No. 36 Chandni Chowk, In Front Of Rathi Kirana Stores, Ganjpara Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.)e 2 - Smt Monu Sharma W/o Dinesh Sharma Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Ward No. 36 Chandni Chowk, In Front Of Rathi Kirana Stores, Ganjpara Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Appellants(s) versus 1 - Dharamdas Sahu S/o Rajau Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Daniya, Post And Police Station Bori, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) (Driver Of Alleged Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G.07-A Z-4282) 2 - Gourmohan Tripathi S/o Late Jagat Narayan Tripathi Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. 689, Kadambari Nagar, Durg, Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) (Owner Of Alleged Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G.07-A Z-4282) 3 - Magma General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, First Floor, Pujari Chamber Block A-1, Dharam Nagar, Taigore Nagar, Abhanpur Road Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Alleged Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G.07-A Z-4282) ... Respondent(s) BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.09.03 10:37:51 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. S. P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : ------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 02 /09/2026 1. I.A. No.01/2026 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal stands dismissed as not pressed. 2. Heard on admission. 3. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 14.05.2026, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg (CG) in Claim Case No.180/2025, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.17,87,334/- as compensation for the death of Sanskar Sharma, aged about 24-25 years, who died in a road accident that took place on 21.03.2025. 4. Learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,948/-, added 40% towards future prospects, deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses, applied the multiplier of 18 and awarded compensation under various heads as under: S.N. Head Calculation 1 Loss of dependency 16,55,334 2 Loss of estate 18,000 3 3 Funeral Expenses 18,000 4 Filial consortium (Rs.48,000 each to the two claimants) 96,000 Total Awarded Amount Rs.17,87,334 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased was working as an Office Manager with Krishna Traders, Gablipara, Durg. A certificate showing his monthly income as Rs.25,000/- was produced in evidence and, in support thereof, the claimants examined Krishnakant Chandravanshi (NAW-2) as a witness. It is contended that the Claims Tribunal has erred in not accepting the aforesaid income and in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,948/-. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the impugned award be suitably modified by enhancing the amount of compensation. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the entire record with due care and circumspection. 7. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record and discussing the issue in paragraphs 33 to 35 of the impugned award, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,948/- by treating him as an unskilled labourer. The said finding of the Claims Tribunal does not call for any interference as the witness examined by the claimants, namely, Krishnakant Chandravanshi (NAW-2), during his cross-examination, admitted that the certificate regarding the employment and salary of the deceased, marked as Ex.A-19, had not been prepared by him and that he had merely signed the same. He further admitted that he has not produced any salary or attendance register in 4 support of the alleged employment or income of the deceased in the present case. Hence, the Claims Tribunal was justified in not placing reliance upon Ex.A-19 and in assessing the monthly income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum wages prevailing on the date of the accident. 8. Thus, considering the date of the accident, the age of the deceased, the number of dependants, and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and does not warrant any interference. 9. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130