1 2026:CGHC:8658 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 532 of 2024  Smt. Shreya Pandey Wd/o Late Arvind Pandey Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Chhatona, Police Station - Chakarbhatha, Tahsil - Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.),...(Applicant) ... Appellant versus 1. Pradip Kumar S/o Ashok Kumar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Bharaul, Sikhohabad, District Firojabad (U.P.), (Driver Of The Vehicle Container Truck No. Rj-52-G.A.-2974),...(Non-Applicants) 2. Khaitan Logistic Private Limited 616 4th Floor, Anchor Mall, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Rajsthan), (Owner Of The Vehicle Container Truck No. Rj-52-G.A.- 2974) 3. Branch Manager Raheja Q.B.E. General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - 3rd Floor 312, Corporate Park, Ajmer Park, Gopalbari, Jaipur (Rajsthan),(Insurer Of The Vehicle Container Truck No. Rj-52-G.A.- 2974), 4. Ramesh Kumar Pandey S/o Siddhram Pandey Aged About 65 Years R/o Chhatauna, Hirri Mines, Police Station - Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Smt. Kavita Bai Pandey W/o Ramesh Kumar Pandey Aged About 50 Years R/o Chhatauna, Hirri Mines, Police Station - Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/claimant : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No. 3/ : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate Insurance Company For Respondents No. 1, 2, 4 : None, though served. & 5 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.02 .2026 1. The claimant/appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement as well as proper apportionment of compensation challenging judgment and award SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.02.19 15:37:54 +0530 2 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur passed in Claim Case No. 1403/2021, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,83,760/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of death of Arvind Pandey. 2. The appellant is wife, whereas, respondents No. 4 and 5 are parents of the deceased Arvind Pandey. 3. The facts in brief are that on 07.03.2020 motorcycle of deceased was dashed by Container Truck bearing registration No. RJ 52 GA 2974. In said accident, Arvind Pandey sustained injuries and succumbed to death. Two separate claim petitions were filed. Claim Case No. 1403/2021 was filed by Smt. Shreya Pandey/wife of the deceased, whereas, Claim Case No. 466/2021 was filed by Kavita Bai Pandey and Ramesh Kumar Pandey/ parents of the deceased. They pleaded that at the time of accident age of the deceased was 24 years and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. The Insurance Company filed reply and took a plea that there was negligence on the part of rider of motorcycle. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed. The learned Tribunal granted compensation as under :- “01. आव㕇द☿कᔾ एव㕇 अन⠾व㕇कᔾ ्䵅ा㸰 कᔾ 04 एव㕇 05 ( व㕇 ्䵚कᔾरण ्䵅ा㸰 कᔾ 466/21 कᔾ आव㕇द☿कᔾ), अन⠾व㕇कᔾ ्䵅 01 स㡇 03 स㡇, कᔾ ल 18,83,760/- रぁपय⽇ ( अठ‾रह लख त␿रस㡇 हज᰾र स㡇 स㡇 स㡇ठ‾ रぁपय⽇) ्䵌त␿प!ቔ和# रश㘿% ्䵚प⩍ कᔾरन⠾ कᔾ अध✿(कᔾर ह)। 02. अन⠾व㕇कᔾ ्䵅 03 बⱀा㸰 कᔾ पन⠾, 18,83,760/- रぁपय⽇ ( अठ‾रह लख त␿रस㡇 हज᰾र स㡇 स㡇 स㡇ठ‾ रぁपय⽇) ्䵌त␿प!ቔ和# रश㘿% आव㕇द☿कᔾ एव㕇 अन⠾व㕇कᔾ ्䵅ा㸰 कᔾ 04 एव㕇 05 ( व㕇 ्䵚कᔾरण ्䵅ा㸰 कᔾ 466/21 कᔾ आव㕇द☿कᔾ) कᔾ, अध✿(त␿न⠾ण-य⽇ द☿न⠾ कᔾ स㡇 30 द☿व㕇स㡇 कᔾ भⵀर अध✿(त␿न⠾य⽇ा㸰 कᔾ (र 168 (3) कᔾ अन⠾स㡇र अध✿(कᔾरण कᔾ ख ्䵅 ० 51812191033002 ा㸰0 NEFT/RTGS कᔾ ा㸰ध❍य⽇ा㸰 स㡇 ज᰾ा㸰 कᔾर इस㡇कᔾ स㡇!चन⠾ अध✿(कᔾरण कᔾ, गᝀ। 03. अन⠾व㕇कᔾ ्䵅 03 ቛ宋र अध✿(त␿न⠾ण-य⽇ कᔾ पलन⠾ ा㸰0 स㡇 ्䵈 रश㘿% कᔾ स㡇 बⱀ ( ा㸰0 य⽇द☿ बⱍय⽇ज᰾ पर कᔾ,ई TDS कᔾ कᔾटὌ कᔾ ज᰾ ह:, , त⑍स㡇 बⱀ ( ा㸰0 TDS ्䵚ा㸰ण प्䵔 य⽇ ्䵚ध✿(कᔾ=  अध✿(कᔾर ቛ宋र बⱍय⽇ज᰾ कᔾटὌ कᔾ स㡇 बⱀ ( ा㸰0 ्䵚ा㸰ण प्䵔 स㡇 लगᝍन⠾ कᔾर। 3 04. य⽇द☿ कᔾ,ई अ र〿रा㸰 ्䵌त␿प!ቔ和# रश㘿% आव㕇द☿कᔾ एव㕇 अन⠾व㕇कᔾ ्䵅ा㸰 कᔾ 04 एव㕇 05 ( व㕇 ्䵚कᔾरण ्䵅ा㸰 कᔾ 466/21 कᔾ आव㕇द☿कᔾ) कᔾ, अ त␿कᔾय⽇ गᝀय⽇ ह: , अ कᔾ गᝀई अ र〿रा㸰 ्䵌त␿प!ቔ和# रश㘿% ा㸰!ल अध✿(त␿न⠾ቓ厌ण# ्䵌त␿प!ቔ和# रश㘿% ा㸰0 स㡇ा㸰य⽇,ज᰿ज᰾ त␿कᔾय⽇ ज᰾व㕇गᝀ। 05. आव㕇द☿कᔾ एव㕇 अन⠾व㕇कᔾ ्䵅ा㸰 कᔾ 04 एव㕇 05 ( य⽇ ्䵚कᔾरण ्䵅ा㸰 कᔾ 466/21 कᔾ आव㕇द☿कᔾ) कᔾ, अ कᔾ ज᰾न⠾ व㕇ल 18,83,760/-रぁपय⽇ ( अठ‾रह लख त␿रस㡇 हज᰾र स㡇 स㡇 स㡇ठ‾ रぁपय⽇) ्䵌त␿प!ቔ和# रश㘿% पर प ज᰾कᔾ= द☿न⠾ कᔾ 20.09.2021 स㡇 अय⽇गᝀ द☿न⠾ कᔾ कᔾ 09 ्䵚त␿% व㕇ቔ和B#कᔾ बⱍय⽇ज᰾ य⽇ ह,गᝀ। 06. ्䵌त␿प!ቔ和# रश㘿% ज᰾ा㸰 ह,न⠾ पर उस㡇कᔾ स㡇 त␿व㕇रण त␿न⠾म⹍न⠾न⠾स㡇र त␿कᔾय⽇ ज᰾व㕇गᝀ- I. अन⠾व㕇कᔾ कᔾ ०3 कᔾ ቛ宋र ्䵌त␿प!ቔ和# रश㘿% 18,83,760/-रぁपय⽇ ( अठ‾रह लख त␿रस㡇 हज᰾र स㡇 स㡇 स㡇ठ‾ रぁपय⽇) एव㕇 बⱍय⽇ज᰾ स㡇त␿ह अ त␿कᔾय⽇ ज᰾न⠾ पर ा㸰=कᔾ कᔾ पत⑍न⠾ आव㕇द☿कᔾ ्䵅. 01 कᔾ, 9,41,880/- रぁपय⽇ थ┾ अन⠾व㕇कᔾ ्䵅ा㸰 कᔾ 04 एव㕇 05 कᔾ, 9.41.880/- ्䵅ा㸰%F भⵀगᝀन⠾ त␿कᔾय⽇ ज᰾य⽇। आव㕇द☿कᔾ कᔾ, ्䵚य⽇ 9.41.880/- रぁपय⽇ ा㸰0 स㡇 06 लख रぁपय⽇ 05 व㕇B- कᔾ अव㕇ध✿( कᔾ श㘿लए स㡇व㕇ध✿( ज᰾ा㸰 य⽇,ज᰾न⠾ कᔾ अ गᝀ- त␿कᔾस㡇 रᮆ蛚य⽇कᔾ=  बⱀ)कᔾ ा㸰0 ज᰾ा㸰 त␿कᔾय⽇ ज᰾य⽇ थ┾ %B रश㘿% एव㕇 अध✿(त␿न⠾णH रश㘿% पर ्䵚प⩍ बⱍय⽇ज᰾ कᔾ आ( स㡇त␿ह आव㕇द☿कᔾ कᔾ, उस㡇कᔾ बⱀच ख कᔾ ा㸰ध❍य⽇ा㸰 स㡇 न⠾गᝀ भⵀगᝀन⠾ त␿कᔾय⽇ ज᰾व㕇। ॥. व㕇 ्䵚कᔾरण ्䵅ा㸰 कᔾ 466/21 कᔾ आव㕇द☿कᔾ व㕇 व㕇 ्䵚कᔾरण ्䵅ा㸰 कᔾ 1403/21 कᔾ अन⠾व㕇कᔾ ्䵅ा㸰 कᔾ 04 व㕇 05 कᔾ, ्䵚य⽇ 9,41,880/- रぁपय⽇ ा㸰0 स㡇 अन⠾व㕇कᔾ ्䵅ा㸰 कᔾ 04 ा㸰=कᔾ कᔾ ा㸰 कᔾ न⠾ा㸰 पर 06 लख रぁपय⽇ 05 व㕇B- कᔾ अव㕇ध✿( कᔾ श㘿लए स㡇व㕇ध✿( ज᰾ा㸰 य⽇,ज᰾न⠾ कᔾ अ गᝀ- त␿कᔾस㡇 रᮆ蛚य⽇कᔾ=  बⱀ)कᔾ ा㸰0 ज᰾ा㸰 त␿कᔾय⽇ ज᰾य⽇ थ┾ %B रश㘿% एव㕇 अध✿(त␿न⠾णH रश㘿% पर ्䵚प⩍ बⱍय⽇ज᰾ कᔾ आथ┾ स㡇त␿ह अन⠾व㕇कᔾ ्䵅ा㸰 कᔾ 04 एव㕇 05 कᔾ, उस㡇कᔾ बⱀच ख कᔾ ा㸰ध❍य⽇ा㸰 स㡇 न⠾गᝀ भⵀगᝀन⠾ त␿कᔾय⽇ ज᰾व㕇। III. आव㕇द☿कᔾ एव㕇 अन⠾व㕇कᔾ ्䵅ा㸰 कᔾ 04 कᔾ न⠾ा㸰 पर स㡇व㕇ध✿( ज᰾ा㸰 य⽇,ज᰾न⠾ ा㸰0 ज᰾ा㸰 रश㘿% पर ्䵔:ा㸰श㘿स㡇कᔾ बⱍय⽇ज᰾ ्䵚प⩍ कᔾरन⠾ कᔾ अध✿(कᔾर हIगᝀ थ┾ आव㕇द☿कᔾ एव㕇 अन⠾व㕇कᔾ ्䵅ा㸰 कᔾ 04 न⡍य⽇य⽇लय⽇ कᔾ अन⠾ा㸰त␿ कᔾ त␿बⱀन⠾ कᔾ,ई अत␿Kा㸰 (न⠾ य⽇ ऋण स㡇व㕇ध✿( ज᰾ा㸰 य⽇,ज᰾न⠾ पर ्䵚प⩍ कᔾरन⠾ कᔾ अध✿(कᔾर न⠾हM हIगᝀ। 07. अन⠾व㕇कᔾ ्䵅 01 स㡇 03 अपन⠾ अपन⠾ थ┾ अन⠾. ्䵅. 03. आव㕇कᔾ / आव㕇द☿कᔾगᝀण कᔾ व㕇 ्䵤य⽇ भⵀ व㕇हन⠾ कᔾरगᝀ। 08. अध✿(व㕇कᕍ %ल㉍कᔾ 1500/- रあपय⽇ त␿न⠾(-र〿र त␿कᔾय⽇ ज᰾ ह:, ज᰾, ्䵚ा㸰ण⌿ण ह,न⠾ पर य⽇ ह,गᝀ। न⠾स㡇र ्䵤य⽇ श㘿लकᔾ :य⽇र कᔾ ज᰾व㕇।" and apportioned it 50%-50% between wife and parents. 4. Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate would submit that the learned Tribunal committed error of law while assessing income of deceased Rs. 8,600/-, 4 which is not in consonance with the minimum wages matrix. He would further contend that at the time of accident age of wife of deceased was 22 years and she has life ahead, therefore, the learned Tribunal should have granted 70% of compensation to the wife and remaining 30% to the parents, who were aged about 50 years and 65 years respectively at the time of filing of claim petition. He would pray to allow this appeal. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate appearing for Insurance Company would oppose. She would submit that the deceased was a resident of village Chhatona, Chakarbhata which falls within zone “C” city and the minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer for zone “C” city in the month of March, 2020 was Rs. 8,600/-, and thus, the learned Tribunal assessed the income properly. She would contend that on other heads, the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and there is no scope of enhancement. With regard to proper apportionment, Ms. Diwan would submit that wife of the deceased was not staying in matrimonial house, and therefore, the learned Tribunal granted 50% of compensation to the parents. She would submit that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Admittedly, the deceased was CCTV operator, but claimants could not adduce evidence to prove this fact. The claimants also failed to prove income part; therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly applied minimum wage matrix and assessed income of deceased Rs. 8,600/- and finding recorded in this regard does not require any interference. On other heads, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation strictly in accordance with the law. 5 8. With regard to apportionment, at the time of death of Arvind Prasad age of the widow was 22 years, whereas, age of mother was 50 years and age of father was 65 years. The mother of deceased will be dependant on income of her husband rather her son, whereas, the widow was totally dependant on the income of the deceased. An objection was raised by the parents to the effect that widow of deceased was not staying in matrimonial house, but as marriage was not dissolved, she would be legally entitled to receive compensation. Looking to the age of the widow, the learned Tribunal should have granted compensation in ratio of 70:30, accordingly, the claim of the appellant herein with regard to enhancement is dismissed and with regard to apportionment, it is partly allowed. The widow shall be entitled for 70% of amount of compensation, whereas, parents shall be entitled for 30% of amount of compensation. 9. The parties are directed to approach the concerned Tribunal, which shall pass appropriate order/s in light of observation made in this judgment. 10. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant