MELAN BAI YADAV vs BABLU ALIAS MUKESH KUMAR

1

CGHC010102282025 2026:CGHC:39179
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
ABHIGYA
SAXENA
ABHIGYA
SAXENA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 697 of 2025
1 - Melan Bai Yadav W/o Pardeshi Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o.
House No. 6 Ward No. 37, Bombay Awas, Shankar Nagar, Ps Torwa,
District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Claimant)
... Appellant
versus
1 - Bablu Alias Mukesh Kumar S/o Vastrakar Aged About 29 Years R/o.
Ward No. 42 Opposite Ware House Godown, Devrikhurd, Ps Torwa,
District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Bearing No. C.G.
10 T 1721)
2 - A Shriniwas Rao S/o A Narayan Rao Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward
No. 42, Near Satbahaniya Temple, Devrikhurd, Ps Torwa, District
Bilaspur (C.G.) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. 10 T
1721)
3 - Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Branch Manager,
R/o. Galaxy Heights, Opposite Icici Bank, Vyapar Vihar, Ps Tarbahar,
District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Bearing No. C.G.
10 T 1721)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board

2
07.09.2026
1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025 – an application for condonation of delay
under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963.
2. Upon due consideration and for the reasons assigned in the
application, the same is allowed and delay of 290 days in filing the
appeal is hereby condoned.
3. Heard on admission.
4. Admit.
5. Original Record is available.
6. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
7. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellant/claimant
seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging
the impugned award dated 14.02.2024, passed in Claim Case
No.178/2021 by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(FTC), Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G., whereby the learned Claims
Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.7,54,094/- as compensation
for the death of Sunil Kumar Yadav, who died in a road accident
which took place on 03.07.2011.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned
Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding lesser amount of
compensation in the facts of the case. The Claims Tribunal has

3
assessed the income of the deceased on the lower side and has also
awarded lesser amount under other conventional heads, which
needs to be enhanced. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and
the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be
enhanced.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company would
submit that the Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and
documentary evidence available on record rightly awarded the
compensation amount. Hence, the compensation awarded by the
Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made herein-above and went through the records with
utmost circumspection.
11. In the case at hand, the learned Tribunal has taken the monthly
income of the deceased to be Rs.4,498/-, which has rightly been
assessed as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification
issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh by the
learned Tribunal. The assessment of income and the consequential
calculation of loss of dependency do not suffer from any illegality or
perversity warranting interference by this Court.
12. So far as the compensation awarded under the other conventional
heads is concerned, the Tribunal has also rightly awarded
Rs.74,000/- as compensation and the same is also found to be
proper and in conformity with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble

4
Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay
Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
13. The overall compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is,
therefore, just, proper and reasonable. No ground is made out for
interference with the impugned award. Consequently, the appeal,
being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed . The award passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is affirmed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Saxena