1 2026:CGHC:14340 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1197 of 2024 1 - Dhumnath Nishad S/o Sukhram Aged About 47 Years Resident Of Village Karra, P.S. And Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh),... (Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1 - Sanat Jangade S/o Manharan Lal Jangade Aged About 31 Years Resident Of Village Limtara, P.S. Masturi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh),...(Driver Of O/ending Vehicle Highwa Bearing Registration No. C.G. 10-C-0714) 2 - Mohammad Na5s Meman S/o Late Haji Mohammad Aged About 37 Years Resident Of Kashyap Colony, Gali No. 03, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh),...(Owner Of O/ending Vehicle Highwa Bearing Registration No. C.G. 10-C-0714) 3 - Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch O:ce - Gurukripa Tower, Second Floor, Vyapar Vihar Road, Infront Of Amber Automobiles, P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, ,...(Insurer Of O/ending Vehicle Highwa Bearing Registration No. C.G. 10-C-0714) ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.04.09 17:29:29 +0530 2 For Appellant : Shri Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri G.V.K. Rao, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 25/03/2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) calls in question validity, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 17.8.2023 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Case No.242 of 2020. 2. By the award impugned, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.26,893 on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant in an accident that occurred on 19.9.2019 by rash and negligent driving of the o/ending vehicle Hyva bearing registration No.CG 10 C 0714 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. 3. As per the pleadings of the claim application, the appellant/injured, who was aged about 47 years on the date of accident, was a labour and was earning Rs.9,000 per month. He met with the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the o/ending vehicle. Total compensation of Rs.10,00,000 was claimed. 4. Respondent No.1/driver did not 5le any written statement to the claim application and he remained ex parte. Respondent 3 No.2/owner 5led written statement and denied the averments of the claim application. Respondent No.3/insurance company, denying the averments of the claim application, pleaded that the appellant/claimant himself was rash in bicycling and he fell down due to his own negligence and he sustained simple injuries. Respondent No.1/driver did not have a valid licence to drive the o/ending vehicle. The insurance company pleaded violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 5. On the basis of above pleadings, learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and having decided them awarded the above stated compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the amount of compensation awarded is on lower side; income of the appellant has wrongly been assessed; meager amount of compensation has been awarded on other heads and thus compensation may be enhanced suitably. 7. Opposing the above submission, learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company supports the impugned award. He submits that the appellant/claimant could not prove his income. Thus, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed monthly income of the appellant to Rs.8,400 on the basis of minimum wages. He further submits that just compensation has been awarded. The appeal has no merit and it deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard the rival contentions put forth on behalf of the 4 parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal with due care. 9. The accident took place on 19.9.2019. Learned Claims Tribunal found monthly income of the appellant/claimant to Rs.8,400. No evidence was led with regard to future treatment of the appellant and, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed loss of income of the appellant to one month only. The Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.26,893 in favour of the appellant. 10. Taking into consideration the evidence available on record, this Court can safely hold that the appellant was an unskilled labour and based on minimum wages, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed his monthly income to Rs.8,400. However, the amounts awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards various heads are on lower side. 11. Thus, this Court makes enhancement and awards compensation in the following manner: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Loss of income for a period of 1 month 8,400 2 For expenses incurred in treatment 8,493 3 For expenses towards conveyance 5,000 4 For nutritious food 5,000 5 For pain and su/ering 10,000 Total Compensation = 36,893 (-) Compensation Awarded by the Claims Tribunal = 26,893 Enhancement in Compensation = 10,000 5 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appellant/claimant is held to be entitled to an additional amount of compensation of Rs.10,000. Respondent No.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court before the Claims Tribunal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, within a further period of 30 days from the said deposit by the insurance company, the amount shall be disbursed to the appellant/claimant. Rest of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modi5ed to the extent shown above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal