1 CGHC010379092024 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2153 of 2024 1 - Smt. Sunita Panda W/o Late Gopal Narayan Panda Aged About 47 Years R/o 11/8141 Machchhi Talab Road, Near The House Of Prakash Maheshwari Gudiyari, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Present Address - Mig 2/382, Hudko Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Subhasish Panda S/o Late Gopal Narayan Panda Aged About 14 Years Minor Through His Legal Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Sunita Panda W/o Late Gopal Narayan Panda, R/o 11/8141 Machchhi Talab Road, Near The House Of Prakash Maheshwari Gudiyari, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Present Address - Mig 2/382, Hudko Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Kishan Pal S/o Balvan Singh Pal Aged About 31 Years R/o House No. 128, Abadipara Ganiyari Ward No. 18 Rasmeda, District Durg At Present R/o C/o House Of Navin Agrawal, Lohiya Road, Kailash Nagar Housing Board, Police Station Jamul, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Driver of offending Indica Car No. Cg-07/m-4458) 2 - Mahadev Patel Lodhi S/o Jhadva Patel Lodhi Aged About 44 SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.07.21 17:43:11 +0530 2 Years R/o 29 Bajrang Chowk Mudparkala Anand Gaon, Berla District Bemetara Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Indica Car No. Cg-07/m-4458) 3 - Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Infront Of Karnataka Bank, Parakh Complex, Station Road, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Indica Car No. Cg-07/m-4458) --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None For Respondents No.3 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (20.07.2026) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 03.08.2024, passed in Claim Case No.511/2022, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.25,31,837/- as compensation for the death of Gopal Narayan Panda, who died in a road accident which took place on 10.05.2022. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding a lesser amount of compensation in the facts of the case. The 3 Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per month. However, as per the income tax acknowledgment (Ex.P-14) for the assessment year 2021- 22, the annual income of the deceased was Rs.4,87,600/- and as per income tax acknowledgment (Ex.P-15) for the assessment year 2022-23, the annual income of the deceased was Rs.4,99,810/-. Hence, his income ought to be assessed at Rs.4,99,810/- per annum. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company would submit that the appellants have filed the Income Tax Returns of the deceased for the Assessment Years 2021- 2022 and 2022-2023 in respect of the income of the deceased. However, with regard to the income of the deceased as mentioned in Exhibits P.14 and P.15, the appellants have not filed sufficient evidence before the Tribunal as to from which sources the said income was derived. This fact has also been considered by the Tribunal and 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. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, true it is that the learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.25,000/- monthly. The deceased, Gopal Narayan Panda, was employed with Bhikshu Traders. Vedshira Pandey (AW- 2), an Accountant at Bhikshu Traders, proved the salary 4 slip of the deceased and deposed that the deceased was paid either Rs.25,000/- or the commission earned by him, whichever was higher. Exhibit P-14 is the Income Tax Return (ITR) for the Assessment Year 2021-22 along with the computation of income. The same was filed with the Income Tax Department on 03.12.2021, i.e., prior to the death of the deceased, and there is no reason to doubt its authenticity. Exhibit P-15 is the Income Tax Return (ITR) for the Assessment Year 2022-23 along with the computation of income. The same was filed with the Income Tax Department on 03.07.2022, i.e., after the death of the deceased. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malarvizhi and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC 90 has clearly held that the income tax return is a statutory document on which reliance may be placed, where available, for computation of annual income. In the light of the said judgment, as per the income tax acknowledgment (Ex.P-14) for the assessment year 2021- 22, the annual income of the deceased was Rs.4,87,600/- and as per the income tax acknowledgment (Ex.P-15) for the assessment year 2022-23 the annual income of the deceased was Rs.4,99,810/-. The accident was occurred on 10.05.2022, therefore, considering the income tax acknowledgment (Ex.P-15) the income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 4,99,810/- per annum. Since the deceased was aged about 51 years at the time of accident, as per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the future prospects would be 10%. After adding 10% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.49,981/-, the annual income comes to Rs.5,49,791/-. 7. From the annual income of the deceased, there will be 5 statutory deduction towards income tax. The income tax slab for the financial year 2022-2023 was as follows: Income Tax Slabs in the FY 2014-15 Income Tax Rates Taxable Income Total Tax Upto 2.5 lakh nill Rs. 2,50,000/- nill 2,50,001 to 5,00,000 5% Rs. 2,50,000/- Rs. 12,500/- 5,00,001 to 10,00,000/- 20% 49,791/- Rs. 9,958.2/- Total Rs. 22,458.2 8. In view of the same, after deduction of income tax, the annual income in round figure comes to Rs.5,27,333/- (549791-22458), to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified. 9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income Rs. 4,99,810/- annually 2. Future prospect (+)10% (i.e. Rs. 49,981) = 5,49,791/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 4. Tax Deduction (-) (22458) = 5,27,333/- 5. Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. 175777) = 3,51,556/- 6. Multiplier (x) 11 = 38,67,116/- 7. Other conventional heads Rs. 1,32,000/- (18000+18000+96000) Total Rs. 39,99,116/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.25,31,837/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.39,99,116/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.25,31,837/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.14,67,279/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from filing of the claim application before the Claims Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 12. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the concerned Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co- ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge -Shubham