1 2026:CGHC:15405 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 842 of 2023 1 - Pramod Das S/o Ganesh Das Manikpuri Aged About 32 Years R/o Ranwabhatha House Of Kishan Pal, Police Station Khamtarai, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) (Driver Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 Ja 6017) 2 - Smt. Saroj Tiwari W/o R.K. Tiwari Aged About 60 Years R/o Ansho Ratan, Shanker Nagar, Raipur, Police Station Civil Line, District Raipur (C.G.) (Owner Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. Cg 04 Ja 6017) ... Appellants versus 1 - Asheshwar Yadav S/o Jagarnath Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Motipur, Post Office Thakraha, District Pashchimi Champaran, Tahsil Madhubani (Bihar) 2 - Geeta Devi W/o Asheshar Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Motipur, Post Office Thakraha, District Pashchimi Champaran, Tahsil Madhubani (Bihar) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. S. P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 02.04.2026 1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 12.12.2022 passed by the learned 12th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short learned Tribunal), Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in MACT case No. 736/2019. HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.04.10 16:58:15 +0530 2 2) By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 12,56,360/- to the appellants/claimants for the death of the deceased/Neeraj Kumar in an accident that occurred on 11.07.2022 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing Registration No. CG-04-JA-6017 driven by Respondent No. 1 and owned by Respondent No. 2. 3) As per the pleadings in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the deceased was riding a motorcycle which was dashed against by the offending vehicle, resulting into his death. The deceased was aged about 19 years and was employed in a factory, earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. Thus, the compensation of Rs. 22,30,000/- was claimed. 4) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/driver and owner filed their written statements denying the averments made in the claim application and stated that amount claimed by the appellants/claimants is exaggerated. Hence, it is prayed that they may be exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation. 5) On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed 3 issues and, after appreciating the material available on record, decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded the aforesaid compensation. 6) Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, it is prayed that suitable enhancement be made by this Court. 7) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 & 2 supports the impugned award and submits that just and reasonable compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 9) From the record, it does not appear that the appellants/claimants were able to satisfactorily establish the profession and income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal, upon a careful appreciation of the evidence available on record, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 7,800/-. The Tribunal further added 40% towards future prospects and, after deducting one-half towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 18, computed the loss of dependency. Additionally, for loss of consortium Rs. 44,000/-, loss of estate Rs. 16,500/- and funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- were duly awarded by the learned Tribunal. Consequently, the total compensation of Rs. 12,56,360/- was granted in favour of the appellants/claimants. 10) In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has appropriately assessed the income of the deceased in the absence of cogent evidence and the award does not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court. 11) Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari