1 2026:CGHC:11826 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1287 of 2024 1 - Smt. Uttara Bai Kurre Wd/o Late Nizam Singh Kurre Aged About 48 Years Occupation - Housewife, Resident Of Village - Sukhari, Police Station Ranchirayee, Tahsil And District Balod (C.G.),...(Claimants) 2 - Ku. Pushpalata Kurre D/o Late Nizam Singh Kurre Aged About 13 Years (Minor), Occupation - Minor Student, Through The Natural Guardian - Mother, Smt. Uttara Bai Kurre, Resident Of Village - Sukhari, Police Station Ranchirayee, Tahsil And District Balod (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Thagiya Bai Widow Of Late Devdas Kurre Aged About 65 Years Resident Of Village - Sukhari, Police Station Ranchirayee, Tahsil And District Balod (C.G.) … Appellants versus 1 - Govind Singh Markam S/o Shri Soman Singh Markam Aged About 30 Years Occupation - Driver, R/o Village Chichari, Police Station Vishrampur, Tahsil Farasgaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.), (Driver Of The Truck No. C.G. - 04 - M.H. - 6636),...(Non-Applicant) 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. C.G. - 04 - M.H. - 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. C.G. - 04 - M.H. - 6636) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Devendra Kashyap, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. GVK Rao, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 12/03/2026 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the award passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 1005 of 2022 dated 01.05.2024, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of 12,29,800, on account of death ₹ of Nizam Singh Kurrey. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.08.2022, the motorcycle of the deceased was dashed by the offending truck bearing registration No. CG-04-MH-6636. In the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. 3. The claimants, who are the widow, child and mother of the deceased, filed a claim case under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and pleaded that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 55 years and he was earning 16,000 per month as he was working in ₹ Bhilai Carry Company. 4. The driver, owner and insurance company filed reply and denied the claim averments. The learned Tribunal framed issues and parties led evidence, thereafter the award was passed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants would argue that the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased 11,000 per month, ₹ whereas the deceased was earning 16,000 per month and this fact is ₹ evident from his salary slips Exhibits P-6 to P-8, which were duly proved by Maniram Nishad (AW-2), who was working as a Supervisor in the said company. He would submit that the Tribunal has not granted adequate compensation under the conventional heads. 3 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by the counsel for the claimants. They would submit that as per Exhibit P-6, the deceased received salary of 10,949 in the ₹ month of June 2022, 11,468 in the month of July 2022 vide Exhibit P-7, ₹ and 8,799 in the month of August, 2022 vide Exhibit P-8. He would ₹ further submit that the salary of the deceased was not fixed, therefore, the income of 11,000 assessed by the Tribunal appears to be proper. ₹ He would submit that the claim of 16,000 per month is not supported ₹ by cogent evidence; thus, they would pray that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The deceased, aged about 55 years, met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants pleaded that the income of the deceased was 16,000 per month but failed to produce clenching ₹ evidence. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at ₹11,000 per month based on the salary slips Exhibits P-6 to P-8, thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the income of the deceased. 9. The Tribunal granted 10% towards future prospects and deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses looking to the number of dependents. Applied multiplier of 11, considering the age of the deceased 55 years, the Tribunal also granted compensation under the heads of loss of consortium and funeral expenses, I do not find any scope for interference in the award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim