Chhattisgarh High Court
MAC/1110/2026 of UTTARA KUMARI Vs KULDEEP SINGH on 12 October 2026
2026:CGHC:44235 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1110 of 2026 1 - Uttara Kumari Wd/o. Late Narayan Prasad Chandra Aged About 45 Years R/o. Village- Borsi, Police Station- Birra, Tahsil- Bamhanideeh, District- Janjgir-Chmapa (C.G.) 2 - Purushottam Chandra S/o. Late
CGHC010175612026
2026:CGHC:44235
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1110 of 2026
1 - Uttara Kumari Wd/o. Late Narayan Prasad Chandra Aged About 45
Years R/o. Village- Borsi, Police Station- Birra, Tahsil- Bamhanideeh, District- Janjgir-Chmapa (C.G.)
2 - Purushottam Chandra S/o. Late Narayan Prasad Chandra Aged About 21 Years R/o. Village Borsi, Police Station- Birra, Tahsil- Bamhanideeh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
... Appellants
versus
1 - Kuldeep Singh S/o. Gura Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o. House No.- 36, Ajad Nagar Nagar Nigam Colony, Ashoka Garden, Bhopal (M.P.) At Present R/o. Village And Police Station- Jhandar, District- Amritsar (Punjab) (Driver Of The Vehicle Capsule No C.G. 07 C.L.
2 - Harnek Singh S/o. Pakhar Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o. 37/11, Near Saini Complex, Transport Nagar, Hathkhoj, Bhilai, District- Durg
(C.G.) (Owner Of The Vehicle Capsule No. C.G. 07 C.L. 9655)
3 - Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- Agrawal Chamber, 1st Floor, Upper Of Kenra Bank Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Police Station- Civil Line, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur
(C.G.) (Insurer Of The Vehicle Capsule No. C.G. 07 C.L. 9655)
... Respondents
For Appellants
:
Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate.
For Respondent Nos.1& 2
:
None
For Respondent No.3
:
Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.
Order on Board
(13.10.2026)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This is the claimants’ appeal for enhancement against the award dated 08.10.2026 passed by the 5th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.1983/2024 whereby a compensation amount of Rs.14,82,500/- has been awarded on account of the death of Narayan Prasad Chandra, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.09.2024.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,380/-, despite their pleading to the effect that the deceased was Manson and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Learned counsel, accordingly, prays that the income of the deceased be reassessed at a higher rate and the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal may be enhanced accordingly.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased and passed the impugned award, which does not call for any interference by this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No.3 & perused the award impugned including the record.
5. In the case in hand, though the appellants/claimants pleaded before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was Manson and at the time of accident he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record to established such pleading of the appellants/claimants, and the learned Tribunal considering that the accident occurred on 27.09.2024, and according to the minimum wages notification issued by the Labour Department, the minimum wages prescribed for an unskilled labourer at the relevant time were Rs.10,380/- per month, which has also been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. There is no material on record to establish that the deceased was earning anything more than the aforesaid amount. Therefore, this Court finds no basis to assess the income at a higher rate than Rs.10,380/- per month.
6. Having carefully perused the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has judiciously appreciated the evidence and there is no evidence to hold that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing Manson work. The quantum of compensation awarded is fair and proper. There is no legal or factual infirmity in the impugned award warranting for interference by this Court.
7. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellants is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge pekde