Smt. Tameshwari Koreti Vs Mukesh Kumar Nag

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2026:CGHC:12113

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 650 of 2022

¶7

1 - Smt. Tameshwari Koreti Wd/o Late Pramod Kumar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Eragaon, Bhanupratappur, Police Station Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Piyush Koreti S/o Late Pramod Kumar Aged About 2 Years (Minor Through Mother Appellant No. 1 ) R/o Village Eragaon, Bhanupratappur, Police Station Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Appellant(s)

¶10

Versus

¶11

1 - Mukesh Kumar Nag S/o Late Maniram Aged About 28 Years R/o Sitram Pana, P.S. Chhotebethiya, Tahsil Pakhanjoor District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) Presently Residing At Bande, Tahsil Pakhanjoor District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) (Driver), Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2 - Mahavir Mandavi S/o Motiram Mandavi Aged About 29 Years R/o Markatola Laargaon, P.S. Kanker District North Bastar Kander (C.G.) (Owner).

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellants	: Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate
For Respondent(s)	: None though served

¶15

Hon'’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶16

Judgment on Board

¶17

13/03/2026

¶18

2

¶19

The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation challenging the award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, District- North Bastar Kanker, in Claim Case No. 15/2019, dated 18.06.2021, whereby the learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of 12,79,600/-₹ to the claimants on account of the death of Pramod Kumar Koreti and fastened liability with the driver and owner.

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that on 23.04.2018 at about 2:30 p.m., the deceased Pramod Kumar along with his friend Yashwant Koreti was going towards Korar on a motorcycle. The offending vehicle bearing registration No.CG-19-BE-4920, coming from the opposite side being driven by Mukesh Kumar Nag, rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment.

¶21

The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and pleaded that the deceased was 29 years old, working as a mason, and earning 9,000 per month.₹

¶22

The driver and owner filed their reply and denied the allegations made in the claim petition. They contended that the deceased was not hit by their vehicle, and further stated that the vehicle was being driven slowly and the deceased himself was driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently, as a result, the accident took place.

¶23

The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter the award was passed. Since, the offending vehicle was not insured with any insurance company, the learned Tribunal fastened liability with the driver & owner.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at 6,000,₹ whereas as per the minimum wage matrix, the monthly income admissible to an unskilled labourer was 8,100 in the year April, 2018.₹

¶25

3

¶26

He would further submit that the learned Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 16, whereas the correct multiplier is 17, as the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 29 years. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has not added the appropriate amount towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate; thus, he would pray that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal may be enhanced accordingly.

¶27

There is no representation on behalf of the respondents, though served, in the second round.

¶28

I have heard Mr. Tulsiyan, learned counsel for the appellants, at length and perused the record.

¶29

In the present case, the deceased, who was about 29 years of age, met with an accident on 23.04.2018 and died during the course of treatment. The claimants, who are the wife and child of the deceased, filed a claim petition and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.23,96,000/-. The learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased 6,000, whereas the minimum wage admissible to an₹ unskilled labourer in month of April, 2018 was 8,100.₹

¶30

From perusal of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, it also appears that the correct multiplier of 17 has not been applied, and just & proper amounts towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate have not been granted, therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires reconsideration and same is recomputed as under:-

¶31

Sr.	Heads	Compensation	Compensation
No.		awarded by Tribunal	awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs.6,000 x 12 =	Rs.8,100x12=
		72,000/-	Rs.97,200/-

¶32

4

¶33

2.	Deduction 1/4th	Rs.54,000/-	¼ = Rs.72,900/-
3.	Multiplier	(x16) = 8,64,000/-	(x17) = Rs.12,39,300/-
4.	Loss of Estate	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.18,000
5.	Funeral expenses	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.18,000/-
6.	Future Prospects	Rs.3,45,600/-	Rs.4,95,720/-
7.	Loss of Consortium	Rs.40,000	Rs.44,000 x 2 = 88,000/-
	Total	Rs.12,79,600/-	Rs.18,59,020/-
Fin	al Compensation	Rs.18,59,020- Rs.12,79	,600 =Rs.5,79,420/-

¶34

In view of the above calculation, the claimants shall be entitled to

¶35

an additional sum of Rs.5,79,420/- . The driver and owner are directed

¶36

to pay the enhanced compensation Rs.5,79,420/- with interest @ 6% per annum to the appellants/claimants within a period of 60 days. Rest of the terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove.

Sd/-

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

JUDGE

Nadim

Smt. Tameshwari Koreti v. Mukesh Kumar Nag

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Tameshwari Koreti v. Mukesh Kumar Nag

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murti Shri Ramchandra Swami Mandir Sorla Vs Durga Bai

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Anil Agrawal

Narayan Suryavanshi, Vs Ritesh Sahu

Jaibhan Singh Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rohni Singh Vs Kishan Lal

Smt. Sangeeta Prajapati Vs Surendra Mandavi