MANU MANDAVI vs RAMKISHORE JAISWAL

1

CGHC010368822026 2026:CGHC:45964
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 2246 of 2026
1 - Rajbati Matlam W/o Late Jailal Matlam Aged About 45 Years.
2 - Gulshan Kumar Matlam S/o Late Jailal Matlam Aged About 19 Years.
3 - Roshan Kumar S/o Late Jailal Matlam Aged About 17 Years.
Appellant No.3 Through Mother And Natural Guardian Rajbati
Matlam/Appellant No.1.
All are R/o Village Ghotulbeda, Post Office- Bondanar, Police Station-
Tadoki, District- Kanker (C.G.)
... Appellants.
versus
1 - Yogesh Kumar Uike S/o Late Ramnath Uike Aged About 27 Years
R/o Hindu Bina Pal (Palat Para) Police Station- Antagarh, District-
Kanker (C.G.)
2 - Kamlesh Kumar Saiyyam S/o Late Mishri Lal Saiyyam R/o Jain
Mandir, Ward No. 22, Dalli Rajhara, Tahsil- Daundi, District- Balod
(C.G.)
3 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Officer In
Charge, Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd.
Address 1- 1st Floor, 106, 107 Wallfort Ozone, Bilaspur Road, Fafadih
Chowk, Raipur Police Staiton- Ganj Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
Address 2- Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor
Building No. 9/1, Behind Khadelwal Motors, M.G. Road, Adjoining
Treasure Island Mall, Indore- 452001.
... Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate.

2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.
Judgment on Board
(30.10.2026)
1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2026, an application for condonation of delay
of 85 days in filing this appeal.
2. This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of award amount.
3. Upon due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the
application, the same (I.A.No.01/2026) is allowed. Delay of 85
days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
4. Also heard on admission.
5. This is the claimants’ appeal for enhancement against the award
dated 20.03.2026 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Raipur, (C.G.) in Claim Case No.76/2024, whereby a
compensation amount of Rs.14,80,000/- has been awarded on
account of death of Jailal Matlam, who succumbed to the injuries
sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.09.2023.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the
learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the
deceased as Rs.10,000/-, which is on lower side, however, at the
time of alleged incident, he (deceased) was working as mason and
thereby earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Hence, it is prayed that
income of the deceased be re-assessed at a higher rate and the
compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal be
enhanced accordingly. In support of his contention, he places
reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of

3
Chandra Kala & Ors versus ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance
Co. Ltd & Ors, reported in, 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1400 .
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and
perused the memo of appeal including the award impugned.
8. Considering the fact that the alleged accident occurred on
14.09.2023 and according to the minimum wages notification
issued by the Labour Department, the minimum wages prescribed
for an unskilled labourer at that relevant time was Rs.9,960/- per
month, however, Tribunal as assessed the income of deceased as
Rs.10,000/- per month. Furthermore, before the Tribunal
appellants have failed to produce any cogent or reliable evidence
to substantiate either the occupation or income of the deceased.
Hence, this Court finds no basis to assess the income of deceased
at a higher rate than Rs.10,000/- per month. Furthermore,
considering that the deceased was aged about 47 years of age
bracket, the Tribunal added 30% towards future prospects; looking
to the number of claimants (03) deducted 1/3rd of the income
towards personal and living expenses and considering the age
bracket (46 - 50 years), applied a multiplier of 13, appropriate for
the deceased’s age group. Further, Rs.1,80,000/- under other
conventional heads has been awarded. Accordingly, the Tribunal
awarded a total compensation of Rs.14,80,000/- in favour of the
claimants.
9. Having carefully perused the impugned award including the
pleadings made in memo of appeal, this Court is of the considered

4
view that the Tribunal has judiciously appreciated the evidence and
there is no evidence/material to hold that the deceased was earing
Rs.12,000/- per month by doing a work as mason. The quantum of
compensation awarded is fair and proper. There is no legal or
factual infirmity in the impugned award calling for interference by
this Court.
10. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellants is hereby dismissed at
the admission stage itself.

Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
J.