1 CGHC010102282025 2026:CGHC:39179 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 697 of 2025 1 - Melan Bai Yadav W/o Pardeshi Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o. House No. 6 Ward No. 37, Bombay Awas, Shankar Nagar, Ps Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1 - Bablu Alias Mukesh Kumar S/o Vastrakar Aged About 29 Years R/o. Ward No. 42 Opposite Ware House Godown, Devrikhurd, Ps Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. 10 T 1721) 2 - A Shriniwas Rao S/o A Narayan Rao Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 42, Near Satbahaniya Temple, Devrikhurd, Ps Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. 10 T 1721) 3 - Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Branch Manager, R/o. Galaxy Heights, Opposite Icici Bank, Vyapar Vihar, Ps Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. 10 T 1721) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 07.09.2026 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025 – an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. 2. Upon due consideration and for the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 290 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Heard on admission. 4. Admit. 5. Original Record is available. 6. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 7. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 14.02.2024, passed in Claim Case No.178/2021 by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (FTC), Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G., whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.7,54,094/- as compensation for the death of Sunil Kumar Yadav, who died in a road accident which took place on 03.07.2011. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding lesser amount of compensation in the facts of the case. The Claims Tribunal has 3 assessed the income of the deceased on the lower side and has also awarded lesser amount under other conventional heads, which needs to be enhanced. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company would submit 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. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 11. In the case at hand, the learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.4,498/-, which has rightly been assessed as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh by the learned Tribunal. The assessment of income and the consequential calculation of loss of dependency do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court. 12. So far as the compensation awarded under the other conventional heads is concerned, the Tribunal has also rightly awarded Rs.74,000/- as compensation and the same is also found to be proper and in conformity with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble 4 Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. 13. The overall compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is, therefore, just, proper and reasonable. No ground is made out for interference with the impugned award. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. The award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is affirmed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Saxena