1 CGHC010384972026 2026:CGHC:42484 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2231 of 2026 1 - Bharat Dhruw S/o Malesh Dhruw, Aged About 52 Years, All Are Residents Of Hatkeshar Ward No 01 Tahsil Dhamtari District Dhamtari C. G. 2 - Dinesh Dhruw S/o Bharat Dhruw, Aged About 24 Years, Residents Of Hatkeshar Ward No 01 Tahsil Dhamtari District Dhamtari C. G. 3 - Hema Dhruw D/o Bharat Dhruw, Aged About 21 Years, Residents Of Hatkeshar Ward No 01 Tahsil Dhamtari District Dhamtari C. G. ... Appellants versus 1 - Shubham Nagarchi S/o Shiv Kumar Nagarchi, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Stationapara Ward Dhamtari Tahsil Dhamtari District Dhamtari C. G. 2 - Smt Muskan Ali D/o Arish Ali, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Village Gopalpuri Tahsil Dhamtari District Dhamtari C. G. And House 10 153 Ganga Talab Paar Village Nawagaon Ward No 8 Tahsil Dhamtari District Dhamtari C. G. 3 - Ashok Nishad Resident Of Ward No 17 Village Kharbharri Post Gattasilli Tahsil Nagri District Dharmtari C. G. 4 - United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office First Floor Above Indian Bank Tikrapara Chowk Bastar Road Dhamtari District Dhamtari C. G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Not noticed. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (30.09.2026) SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.09.30 15:54:32 +0530 2 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2026, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 3. Upon due consideration, I.A. No.01/2026 is allowed and the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. 4. Heard on admission. 5. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/claimant challenging the award dated 06.06.2026 passed by learned 02nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.143/2024, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.14,80,00/- on account of the death of Anisha Dhruw, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a accident that occurred on 04.02.2024. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the deceased, Anisha Dhruw, was earning 12,000/- per month by ₹ doing cleaning and cooking work in 2–3 households. However, the learned Tribunal has erred in not accepting the said claim and, while assessing the income of the deceased, has assessed her monthly income at 10,000/- as notional income by treating her ₹ as an unskilled labourer. He, therefore, submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal deserves to be suitably enhanced. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with due care and circumspection. 8. The learned Tribunal, while considering the income of the deceased in paragraph 22 of the impugned award, has recorded a finding that, although it was claimed by the claimant that the deceased was earning 12,000/- per month by rendering domestic services, ₹ 3 including cooking and cleaning, no documentary or other cogent evidence was adduced on record to substantiate the said assertion. The accident in question occurred on 04.02.2024. There is no clinching evidence on record to establish that the deceased was working as a domestic helper or was engaged in any skilled employment. In the absence of any reliable evidence regarding the actual income or nature of employment of the deceased, the learned Tribunal assessed his monthly income at 10,000/- on the ₹ basis of the notional income applicable on the date of the accident, treating him as an unskilled labourer. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased by the Tribunal. 9. Upon an overall consideration of the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and does not warrant any interference. 10. Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. 11. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge $ourabh