1 2026:CGHC:16132 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 252 of 2020 Smt. Radha Bai, Wd/o. Late Madan Sunder Yadav, Aged About 37 Years, R/o. Through Rishikesh Yadav, Roshan Colony, Church Road, Kansabel, Tahsil – Kansabel, District – Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Minor Deepak Kumar Yadav, S/o. Late Madan Sunder Yadav, Aged About 17 Years, Minor, Through Guardian Grandfather Jageshwar Prasad Yadav, Appellant No. 4, R/o. Village And Post - Kushmura, Police Station - Kotraroad, Tahsil And District – Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Rakesh Kumar Yadav, S/o. Late Madan Sunder Yadav, Aged About 16 Years, Minor, Through Guardian Grandfather Jageshwar Prasad Yadav, Appellant No. 4, R/o. Village And Post - Kushmura, Police Station - Kotraroad, Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Hemowati Yadav, W/o. Jageshwar Prasad Yadav, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. Village And Post - Kushmura, Police Station - Kotraroad, Tahsil And District – Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.04.08 18:33:29 +0530 2 4 - Jageshwar Prasad Yadav, S/o. Gopal Prasad Yadav, Aged About 62 Years, R/o. Village And Post - Kushmura, Police Station - Kotraroad, Tahsil And District – Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. …..Claimants 5 - Vijay Sao, S/o. Rewa Sao, Aged About 46 Years, Occupation - Owner / Driver, R/o. Village - Nawadih, Ward No. 4, Police Station - Markacho, District - Kodarma (J.H.) ……….(Owner / Driver ) 6 - Manager, Megma General Insurance Company Limited, Megma House, 24 Park Street, Kolkata (W.B) 700016 (Insurer). 7 – Laxmi, Wd/o. Late Madan Sundar Yadav, R/o. House No. 248, Village - Godhikala, Tahsil - Pathalgaon, District – Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 08.04.2026 1. The appellant herein i.e. second wife of the deceased Madan Sundar Yadav has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 questioning the impugned award dated 3 07.12.2019 passed by the Seventh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, in Claim Case No.46/2018 stating the she is also entitled for compensation along-with son, mother & father of the deceased. 2. Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not granting compensation to the second wife of the deceased i.e. appellant herein by recording a finding, which is perverse to the record. 3. Ms. Harneet Kaur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6, would support the impugned award and submit that the appeal of the appellant herein is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, deceased Madan Sundar Yadav was married with Laxmi Yadav, but during lifetime of Madan Sundar Yadav, his wife Laxmi Yadav without giving divorce to him left his company and married with someone else and there was no divorce took place between them in accordance with law and their customs. However, it is the case of the appellant that she started living with the deceased and after his death vide Ex.D-7 number of benefits have been granted to her. Since the deceased was already married with 4 Laxmi Yadav and divorce has not been taken place between Laxmi Yadav and deceased Madan Sundar Yadav and the marriage between the appellant and deceased even otherwise has not been established. Furthermore, the appellant herein remained as non- applicant before the Claims Tribunal and she did not claim any compensation and even she did not prove her marriage with the deceased. In that view of the matter, the Claims Tribunal is absolutely justified in not granting compensation to the appellant herein. As such, I do not find any merit in this appeal, the same deserves to be and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge