1 CGHC010068072024 2026:CGHC:41377 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 390 of 2024 1 - Smt. Dileshwari Verma W/o Late Kirti Kumar Verma Aged About 31 Years R/o House No. 132, Ward No. 7, Tenduwa, P.S. Sambalpur, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Vill. Bodri, Post And P.S. Chakarbhatha, Tah. Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dushyant Kumar Verma S/o Late Kirti Kumar Verma Aged About 10 Years Appellant No. 2 Is Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Dileshwari Verma, R/o House No. 132, Ward No. 7, Tenduwa, P.S. Sambalpur, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Vill. Bodri, Post And P.S. Chakarbhatha, Tah. Bilha, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kumari Durgeshwari D/o Late Kirti Kumar Verma Aged About 3 Years Appellant No. 3 Is Minor Through Legal Natural Guardina Mother Smt. Dileshwari Verma, R/o House No. 132, Ward No. 7, Tenduwa, P.S. Sambalpur, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Vill. Bodri, Post And P.S. Chakarbhatha, Tah. Bilha, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Gulapa Bai W/o Late Vikram Singh Aged About 61 Years R/o House No. 132, Ward No. 7, Tenduwa, P.S. Sambalpur, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Vill. Bodri, Post And P.S. Chakarbhatha, Tah. Bilha, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Bhupendra Kumar Dhruw S/o Goverdhan Dhruw Aged About 28 Years R/o Vill. And Post Anda, Chowki Saket, P.S. And Tah. Pathariya, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.09.23 17:21:22 +0530 2 2 - Dilesh Kumar Nishad S/o Raghunath Nishad Aged About 28 Years R/o Vill. Chhindbhog, P.S. And Tah. Pathariya, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Mazda Bearing Registration No. C.G. 28/m/0463). 3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Second Floor, Infront Of Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : None For Respondent No.3 Ms. Mansi Bandey, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board (23.09.2026) 1. Heard on I.A.No.01/2024, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. There is delay of 21 days in filing the appeal. 3. Upon due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same (I.A.No.01/2024) is allowed. Delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Also heard on admission. 5. This is the claimants’ appeal for enhancement against the award dated 19.10.2023 passed by the 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.1623/2021 whereby a compensation amount of Rs.20,62,220/- has been awarded on account of the death of Kirti Kumar Verma, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.05.2021. 3 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,200/-, which is at lower side as per the minimum wages prevailing on the date of incident i.e. 30.05.2021 for unskilled labour. Learned counsel, accordingly, prays that the income of the deceased be reassessed at a higher rate and the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal be enhanced accordingly. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company supported the impugned award and submitted that, based on the evidence, the award has rightly been calculated by the claims tribunal and does not warrant any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 9. Considering that the accident occurred on 30.05.2021, and according to the minimum wages notification issued by the Labour Department, the minimum wages prescribed for an unskilled labourer at the relevant time were Rs. 9,200/- per month, which has also been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. There is no material on record to establish that the deceased/injured was earning anything more than the aforesaid amount. Therefore, this Court finds no basis to assess the income at a higher rate than Rs. 9,200/- per month. Furthermore, considering that the deceased was aged about 32 years of age bracket, the Tribunal added 40% towards future prospects; looking to the number of claimants (04) deducted 1/4th of the income towards personal and living expenses and considering the age bracket (31 - 35 years), applied a multiplier of 16, appropriate for the deceased’s age group. Further, Rs.1,63,500/- under other conventional heads has been awarded. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.20,62,220/- in favour of the claimants. 4 10. Having carefully perused the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has judiciously appreciated the evidence and there is no evidence to hold that the deceased was a skilled labourer. The quantum of compensation awarded is fair and proper. There is no legal or factual infirmity in the impugned award calling for interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellants is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge pekde