1 2026:CGHC:13077 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 581 of 2020 1 - Sbi General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, S B I General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Pujari Park Complex, Near Pachpedi Naka, Raipur Chhattisgarh................(Non Applicant No. 3), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Sushila Dhritlehre Wd/o Late Parasram Dhritlehre, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Khorsi, Thana Kharora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh............Claimant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jayprakash Dhritlehre, S/o Late Parasram Dhritlehre, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Khorsi, Thana Kharora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh............Claimant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chandraprakash Dhritlehre, S/o Late Parasram Dhritlehre, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Khorsi, Thana Kharora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh............Claimant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sanjay Kol, S/o Gulab Kol, C/o Arif Khan Yard Monet Road, Behind Bharat Bidi Patta Godown, Village Nakta, Thana Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.............Driver, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.03.19 17:59:54 +0530 2 5 - Mohd. Arif Ahmed, S/o Haji Mohd Rafik, R/o Behind St. Paul School, Baron Bazar, Raipur Chhattisgarh..............Owner, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Miss Ankita Goswami appears on behalf of Mr. PK Patel, Advocate. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 18/03/2026 : 1. The appellant/SBI General Insurance Company has preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act, 1988’) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 2.12.2019 passed by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.619/2018 by which liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,06,000/- along with interest has been fastened. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal was not justified in passing the impugned award by taking the income of the deceased on higher side and, therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 would support the impugned award. 3 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. In the instant case, deceased Parasram, aged about 49 years, was involved in agriculture work and was also running grocery and general store and was doing the business in the name of Ghritlahre Anaj Bhandar. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that annual income of the deceased would be Rs.2,40,000/- and applied multiplier of 11. Towards future prospects, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.19,36,000/-. Towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of companionship, an amount of Rs.15,000/-, 15,000/- & Rs.40,000/- respectively was awarded. 6. Considering the evidence on record, annual income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is correct, which is neither on the higher side nor on the lower side and the Tribunal was absolutely justified in granting compensation to the claimants. 7. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 8. The Appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve