1 CGHC010007522024 2026:CGHC:41894 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 156 of 2024 1 - Smt. Ganga Jangade W/o Late Ganesh Kumar Jangade, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Kukurdih Thana Balouda Bazar, Tahsil And District Baluda Bazar Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Manshi Jangade D/o Late Ganesh Kumar Jangade, Aged About 1 Years, Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Ganga Jangade Appellant No. 1. R/o Kukurdih Thana Balouda Bazar, Tahsil And District Baluda Bazar Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Sovind Dhruv S/o Jatram Dhruv, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Gedeliya Gopka Bhathapara, Thana Bhathapara, Village District Bhathapara, Villager District Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Haiwa No. C.G. 08/A.B./8532). 2 - M/s G.D.H. Constructions, Proprietor Siyaram Plot No. 54, Ridhishidhi Vihar Rajnandgaon, Thana Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Haiwa No. C.G. 08/a.B./8532). 3 - Branch Manager, The Ne India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Rama Trade Center 1st Floor, Old Bus Stand Bilaspur In Front Of Rajeev Plaza Thana Civil Line Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bialspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Haiwa No. C.G. 08/a.B./8532) 4 - Ramkumar Jangade S/o Tiharuram Jangade, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Kukurdih Thana Balouda Bazar Tahsil And, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Nemin Bai Jangade W/o Ramkumar Jangade, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Kukurdih Thana Balouda Bazar Tahsil And, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.09.26 15:41:26 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondents : Not noticed. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board (26.09.2026) 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2026, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the appeal, the same is allowed and the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Also heard on admission. 4. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants challenging the award dated 05.09.2023 passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, (CG) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 555/2021, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.18,95,984/- on account of the death of Ganesh Kumar Jangade, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 04.01.2021. 5. The appellants’ case, in brief, is that on 04.01.2021, Ganesh Kumar Jangde was travelling on a Bajaj Platina motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-22-S-6706 from his village Kukurdih towards Bhatapara Mandi. At about 4:30 p.m., near the Electricity Sub-Station on Kukurdih Main Road, a Hiva vehicle bearing registration No. CG-08-AB-8532, driven by Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and on the wrong side of the road, collided with his motorcycle. As a result of the accident, Ganesh Kumar Jangde sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to them at the spot. A report of the accident was lodged at Police Station City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar. The appellants, i.e., the wife and minor daughter of the deceased, filed 3 the claim petition against Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and impleaded the father, Rajkumar Jangde, and mother, Smt. Nemin Bai Jangde, of the deceased as Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, respectively. They claimed compensation of 45,00,000/- on ₹ account of the death of Ganesh Kumar Jangde. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the deceased, Ganesh Kumar Jangde, was working as a mason (Rajmistri) and was earning 15,000/- per month. However, the ₹ learned Tribunal erred in not accepting the said claim and, while assessing the income of the deceased, determined his monthly income at 8,960/- by treating him as an unskilled labourer. He ₹ further submits that the learned Tribunal also erred in not treating the father of the deceased as a dependent and did not award any amount towards his dependency. He, therefore, submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be suitably enhanced 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with due care and circumspection. 8. The Tribunal, while considering the income of the deceased in paragraph 31 of the impugned award, recorded a finding that although it was claimed by the claimants that the deceased was earning 15,000/- per month by working as a mason (Rajmistri), ₹ no documentary or other cogent evidence was adduced on record to substantiate the said assertion. The accident occurred on 04.01.2021. In the absence of any reliable evidence regarding the actual income or nature of employment of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed his monthly income at 8,960/- in accordance ₹ with the Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Government of Chhattisgarh, applicable on the date of the accident. Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased made by the Tribunal. 9. As regards the dependency of the father of the deceased, the 4 Tribunal, in paragraph 32 of the impugned award, held that, since the father was residing separately from the deceased at the time of the accident, he could not be treated as a dependent on the income of the deceased. This finding of the Tribunal, upon consideration of the facts and evidence available on record, appears to be just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 10. Upon an overall consideration of the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the Tribunal, this Court finds that the impugned award does not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity warranting interference by this Court. 11. Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE $ourabh