1 2025:CGHC:57517 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1273 of 2024 1 - Smt. Uttara Bai Kurre Widow Of Late Nizam Singh Kurre Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Sukhari, Police Station Ranchirayee, Tah And Dist. Balod (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Pushpalata Kurre D/o Late Nizam Singh Kurre Aged About 13 Years Minor, Occupation Minor Student, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Uttara Bai Kurre, R/o Village Sukhari, Police Station Ranchirayee, Tah And Dist. Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Govind Singh Markam S/o Shri Soman Singh Markam Aged About 30 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Chichari, Police Station Vishrampur, Tah Farasgaon District Kondagaon (C.G.) (Driver Of The Truck No. Cg 04 Mh 6636) 2 - Pankaj Dewangan S/o Shri Ved Prakash Dewangan Aged About 29 Years Occupation Transporter And Truck Owner, R/o 26/k, Ward No. 02, Patelpara, Kokanpur, Korar, Police Station Korar, Tahsil And District Kanker (C.G.) (Owner Of The Truck No. Cg 04 Mh 6636) 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through The Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No. 01, Krishna Complex, Shastri Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of The Truck No. Cg 04 Mh 6636) ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Smt. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri G.V.K. Rao, Advocate. NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 26.11.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. Admit. 3. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. The appellants/ claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 1.5.2024, passed in Claim Case No.1004 of 2022 by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.16,33,000/- and directed the Insurance Company to make payment alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Vidya Kurre. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that on 25.8.2022, deceased – Vidya Kurre and her father Nizam Singh Kurre were going from Raipur to Rawatpura Nursing College, Bilaspur on a motorcycle. At the same time, the driver of the offending Truck bearing registration No.C.G. 04 MH 6636 while driving rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle. Consequently, both the riders sustained injuries and succumbed to death. The mother and minor sister of deceased Vidya Kurre filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein they pleaded that the age of the deceased was 23 years and she was a nurse by profession. She would further contend that the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-, which is on the lower side. She would submit that as the 3 deceased had a degree in nursing and thus, she had employment opportunities and this fact was not considered by the learned Tribunal. She would fairly submit that on other conventional heads the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. She had placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Jyoti Gulati and Anr. Vs. Bhuvnesh and Anr, passed in Civil Appeal No.3277 of 2023 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants. They would submit that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased and the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income by applying the minimum wages matrix. They would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Admittedly, the deceased had a bachelor’s degree in nursing and was working as a Nurse in a private hospital, earning Rs.18,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-, which appears to be on the lower side keeping in view the employment opportunities available to her. The learned Tribunal should have considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jyoti Gulati (supra) in paragraph 4 held as under: “4. Having noted the nature of the claim, which was made, and also keeping in view the employment opportunities, in a 4 matter of the present nature when even an employment opportunity was available, it would be appropriate to take the income at Rs.15,000/- per month. 40% of the said amount i.e. Rs.6,000/-, if added towards future prospects, the total amount would be Rs.21,000/-. 50% of the same being Rs.10,500/- is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased-daughter. If that be so, the loss of dependency per month, would be in a sum of Rs.10,500/-, which taken on the annual basis and the appropriate multiplier of '18' is applied, it will work out to a sum of Rs.22,68,000/-. A sum of Rs.70,000/- is added towards the conventional head. The total compensation will be in a sum of Rs. 23,38,000/-. The High Court has awarded Rs.9,77,200/-. Hence, the claimants are entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.13,60,800/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition before the MACT till the date of the payment.” 9. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation requires recomputation and same is revisited herein below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 10,000 x 12 = Rs. 1,20,000/- Rs. 15,000 x 12 = Rs. 1,80,000/- 2. Future Prospect 40% - 48,000/- (1,20,000 + 48,000 = 1,68,000/-) 40% - 72,000/- (1,80,000 + 72,000 = 2,52,000/-) 3. Deduction (-) 50% (84,000/-) (1,68,000 – 84,000 = 84,000/- (-) 50% (1,26,000/-) (Rs.2,52,000-1,26,000) = Rs. 1,26,000/- 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = Rs. (84,000 x 18 = 15,12,000/-) (x) 18 = Rs. (1,26,000 x 18 = 22,68,000/-) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 44,000 x 2 = 88,000/- Rs. 44,000 x 2 = 88,000/- 5 TOTAL Rs. 16,33,000/- Rs. 23,89,000/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.16,33,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.23,89,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.16,33,000/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.7,56,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi