1 CGHC010134452023 2026:CGHC:42149 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 731 of 2023 1 - Smt. Sushma Swarnkar W/o Late Rajkamal Swarnkar, Aged About 49 Years R/o Bandhawapara Post Sundernagar, Police Station Puranibasti, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Applicants/claimants) 2 - Ku. Sunayana Swarnkar, S/o Late Rajkamal Swarnkar, Aged About 27 Years R/o Bandhawapara Post Sundernagar, Police Station Puranibasti, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Applicants/claimants) 3 - Shubhank Swarnkar, S/o Late Rajkamal Swarnkar, Aged About 27 Years R/o Bandhawapara Post Sundernagar, Police Station Puranibasti, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Applicants/claimants) ... Appellants versus 1 - Jitendra Kumar Yadav S/o Raj Bahadur Yadav, Aged About 24 Years R/o - 28, First Floor, Sharma Complex, Near Videocon Godown, Maklee, Dashnapura, Hubli, Banglore (Karnataka) (Non-Applicant No.1) (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. KA/01/AG/6427) 2 - Ritco Logistic Pvt. Ltd., Through Managing Director, R/o – Flat No.28, First Floor, Sharma Complex, Near Videocon Godown, Maklee, Dashnapura, Hubli, Banglore (Karnataka) (Non-Applicant No.2) (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. KA/01/AG/6427) 3 - The United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No. 1, Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Non Applicant No. 3) (Insurer Of Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. KA/01/AG/6427) ... Respondents PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.09.29 18:29:44 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board ( 28/09/2026 ) 1. Heard on I.A. No.01, an application for condonation of delay. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 3. For the reasons assigned therein, I am inclined to allow the same and delay of 107 days in preferring of this appeal is, hereby, condoned. 4. I.A. No.01, thus, stands disposed of. 5. Heard on admission. 6. This is the claimants’ appeal for enhancement against the award dated 22/09/2022 passed by the learned 12th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Motor Accident claim case No. 751/2017 whereby a compensation amount of Rs. 20,66,977/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased, Rajkamal Swarnkar (aged about 51 years) was engaged in the work of operating the bus and earning Rs.40,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.19,800/-. He, therefore, submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be suitably enhanced. The amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is on lower side which needs to be enhanced suitably. 3 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 9. The Tribunal, while considering the income of the deceased in paragraph 24 of the impugned award, recorded a finding that, although it was claimed by the claimant that the deceased was earning ₹40,000/- per month by working as a bus operator, no documentary or other cogent evidence was adduced on record to substantiate the said assertion. In the absence of any reliable evidence regarding the actual income of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed his monthly income at ₹19,800/- on the basis of the evidence available on record. The accident occurred on 19.09.2017. Nevertheless, the Tribunal awarded a 10% enhancement under the conventional heads. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased made by the Tribunal. 10. On a careful consideration of the material on record, 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. 11. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Prashant