1 2026:CGHC:14585 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1685 of 2023 1 - Smt. Temin Kurrey W/o Late Suraj Kurrey Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dandesara, Post Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Prince Kurrey S/o Late Suraj Kurrey Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Temin Kurrey W/o Late Suraj Kurrey, R/o Village Dandesara, Post Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Vansh Kurrey S/o Late Suraj Kurrey Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Temin Kurrey W/o Late Suraj Kurrey, R/o Village Dandesara, Post Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Smt. Jagnibai W/o Amarsingh Kurrey, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Dandesara, Post Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Amarsingh Kurrey S/o Late Samaruram Kurrey, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Dandesara, Post Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Sanju Kumar Kurrey S/o Amarsingh, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Dandesara, Post Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.04.15 15:38:40 +0530 2 (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Gopi S/o Amarsingh Kurrey, Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Amarsingh Kurrey S/o Late Samaruram Kurrey, R/o Village Dandesara, Post Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) 8 - Durgesh Kumar S/o Amarsingh Kurrey, Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Amarsingh Kurrey S/o Late Samaruram Kurrey, R/o Village Dandesara, Post Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellants versus 1 - Basant Kumar Dhruv S/o Late Ramnath, Aged About 32 Years R/o Vindhyawasni Ward Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh)...........Driver Of Motorcycle No. Cg-05aj-1768-- 2 - Shailesh Chandrakar S/o Late Narayan Chandrakar, Aged About 42 Years R/o Mahatma Gandhi Ward New Balaji Colony, Rudri Road Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh).............Owner Of Motorcycle No. Cg-05aj-1768 3 - Branch Manager, Bharti Axea General Insurance Company Limited, 1st Floor, Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar Raipur, Post Pandri, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)..............Insurer Of Motorcycle No. Cg-05aj-1768- ... Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocate on behalf of Shri A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Ashish Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Shri N.K. Thakur, Advocate 3 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 27/03/2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) calls in question validity, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 4.5.2023 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Case No.22 of 2022. 2. By the award impugned, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.17,97,760 on account of death of Suraj Kurre in an accident that occurred on 23.9.2021 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle motorcycle bearing registration No.CG 05 AJ 1768 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. 3. As per the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 27 years. He was engaged in selling of pulses and was also working as a carpenter. He was earning Rs.600 per day. He met with the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle which resulted into his death. Total compensation of Rs.47,56,000 was claimed. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 and Respondent No.3/insurance company denied the averments of the claim application. Respondent No.3/insurance company also pleaded that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself. Respondent No.1 did not have a valid and effective licence to 4 drive the offending vehicle. There was violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the insurance company claimed exoneration from payment of any compensation. 5. On the basis of above pleadings, learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and having decided them awarded the above stated compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the assessment of monthly income of the deceased is on lower side. He was a carpenter and was also engaged in selling of pulses. Learned Claims Tribunal found monthly income of the deceased to Rs.7,800, which requires suitable enhancement. Apart from this, learned counsel submits that no parental and filial consortium was granted to appellants No.2 to 5. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company supports the impugned award. He submits that no documentary evidence is brought on record to support the income of the deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased rightly and has awarded just compensation. He submits that no interference is warranted. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the learned Claims Tribunal with due care. 9. Taking into consideration the evidence available on record, nature of job, minimum wages, number of dependents, place of 5 working, this Court can safely assume monthly income of the deceased to Rs.10,000. 10. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court recomputes the compensation in the following manner: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Annual Income (Rs.10,000 x 12 = Rs.1,20,000 ) 1,20,000 2 Income with Future Prospects (Rs.1,20,000 x 40% Future Prospects = Rs.48,000; Rs.1,20,000 + Rs.48,000 = Rs.1,68,000 ) 1,68,000 3 Income after Deduction of Personal and Living Expenses of the Deceased (Rs.1,68,000 / 4 = Rs.42,000; Rs.1,68,000 – 42,000 = Rs.1,26,000) 1,26,000 4 Loss of Dependency after Application of Multiplier (Rs.1,26,000 x 17 = Rs.21,42,000 ) 21,42,000 5 Funeral Expenses 16,500 6 Loss of Estate 16,500 7 Spousal Consortium 44,000 8 Parental and Filial Consortium (Rs.40,000 x 4 = Rs.1,60,000) 1,60,000 Total Compensation = 23,79,000 (-) Compensation Awarded by the Claims Tribunal = 17,97,760 Enhancement in Compensation = 5,81,240 6 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of compensation of Rs.5,81,240. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the instant appeal, i.e., 7.10.2023 till final payment of the enhanced compensation. Respondent No.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court along with the interest within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. A sum of Rs.1,50,000 each, total Rs.3,00,000, shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank in the names of appellants No.2 and 3 till their attaining majority. A sum of Rs.1,50,000 shall be kept in fixed deposit in the same nationalised bank in the name of appellant No.1 for a period of three years. A sum of Rs.50,000 each, total Rs.1,00,000, shall be disbursed to appellants No.4 and 5. Remaining amount shall be disbursed to appellant No.1. Rest of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent shown above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal