Chhattisgarh High Court
MAC/2228/2026 of RANJITA SONWANI Vs CHUDAMANI SAGAR on 29 September 2026
2026:CGHC:42483 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2228 of 2026 1 - Ranjita Sonwani W/o Chandresh Sonwani, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Banjari, P.S. Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.). 2 - Chandresh Sonwani S/o Durgaprasad Sonwani, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village
CGHC010384172026
2026:CGHC:42483
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 2228 of 2026
1 - Ranjita Sonwani W/o Chandresh Sonwani, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Banjari, P.S. Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.).
2 - Chandresh Sonwani S/o Durgaprasad Sonwani, Aged About 45
Years, R/o Village Banjari, P.S. Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.).
... Appellants
versus
1 - Chudamani Sagar S/o Balmukund Sagar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Kurud (Ward No. 2 Shanti Nagar), P.S. Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Driver).
2 - Tishya Kumar W/o Yogesh Kumar Netam, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Kodebode, P.S. Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Owner).
3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, 1st Floor, Above Indian Bank, Tikrapar Bastar Road, Dhamtari District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Insurer).
... Respondent(s)
For Appellants
: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For Respondents
: Not noticed.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
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.
Order
on Board
(30.09.2026)
1. Heard on admission.
2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants challenging the award dated 31.07.2026 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari Place Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.142/2025, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.17,05,580/- on account of the death of Manish Sonwani, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.05.2025.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the deceased, Manish Sonwani, was working as a labourer and was also engaged in agricultural work, earning 20,000/- per month. ₹ However, the Tribunal has committed an error in not accepting the said claim and, while assessing the income of the deceased, has assessed his monthly income at 10,400/- by treating him as an ₹ unskilled labourer. He, therefore, submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be suitably enhanced.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with due care and circumspection.
5. The Tribunal, while considering the income of the deceased in paragraph 25 of the impugned award, has recorded a finding that although it was claimed by the claimant that the deceased was earning ₹20,000/- per month by working as a labourer and also by engaging in agricultural work, no documentary or other cogent evidence was adduced on record to substantiate the said assertion. The accident occurred on 07.05.2025 and in the absence of any reliable evidence regarding the actual income or nature of employment of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed his monthly income at 10,400/- on the basis of the prevailing minimum wages ₹ applicable on the date of the accident, treating him as an unskilled labourer. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased by the Tribunal.
6. Upon an overall consideration of the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and does not warrant any interference.
7. Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.
8. No order as to costs.
Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge $ourabh