1 2025:CGHC:16986 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 652 of 2019 Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered Office 3 Middleton Street Post Box No. 9229 Kotkata (W.B.), Division Office Above Karnataka Bank Near Ujala Bhawan Durg Police Station Mohan Nagar Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Rukhmani Chanap Wd/o Late Narendra Kumar Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Reewagahan Tahsil Dondi Lohara District Balod Chhattisgarh 2 - Miss Divya D/o Late Narendra Kumar Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Reewagahan Tahsil Dondi Lohara District Balod Chhattisgarh 3 - Miss Preeti D/o Late Narendra Kumar Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Reewagahan Tahsil Dondi Lohara District Balod Chhattisgarh 4 - Miss Sandhya D/o Late Narendra Kumar Aged About 16 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Smt. Rukhmani Chanap (Mother ) R/o Village Reewagahan Tahsil Dondi Lohara District Balod Chhattisgarh 5 - Nikhil Kumar S/o Late Narendra Kumar Aged About 15 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Smt. Rukhmani Chanap (Mother ) R/o Village Reewagahan Tahsil Dondi Lohara District Balod Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.04.17 10:50:48 +0530 2 6 - Praduman S/o Sukhuram Chanap Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Reewagahan Tahsil Dondi Lohara District Balod Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Dhelabai W/o Praduman Chanap Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Reewagahan Tahsil Dondi Lohara District Balod Chhattisgarh…………….(Respondents No.1 to 7 are Claimants) 8 - Baliram Markam S/o Chaituram Markam R/o Village Kamta Tahsil And District Dondilohara District Balod Chhattisgarh……………………………………………………….(Driver) 9 - M/s. Amar Infrastructure Ltd., Through Manager At Mahesh Nagar Jainam Palace Near Poolgaon Nala G.E. Road Durg Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh……………………………….(Owner) …...Respondents For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 & 5 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondents No.4, 6 to 9 : None (Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal ) Order on Board 11/04/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company under Section 173 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 27.11.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No.321/2017, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.55,69,538/- with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of Respondents No.1 to 7/claimants for their irreparable loss. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal, in brief, are 3 that on 01.06.2017, Narendra Kumar Chanap (now deceased) was going on his motorcycle to his village Reewagahan and when he reached near Keshariya Pond, Jatadah, driver/respondent No. 8 of offending vehicle (Hywa Truck) bearing registration No. CG-07-BB-0351 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of Narendra, due to which Narendra sustained grievous injuries and died on spot. A report of the incident was lodged, based on which offence was registered. 3. It was claimed that on the date of the accident, age of the deceased was about 51 years, he was a public servant (Headmaster) and was earning Rs. 47,452/- per month from his government job. Due to the casual death of the deceased, there is an irreparable loss to the Respondents No.1 to 7/claimants. Therefore, the claimants have claimed Rs.91,93,664 as compensation on various heads. 4. Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, estimated the age of the deceased to be 51 years, assessed monthly income of the deceased to Rs.45,286, given 15% future prospects, deducted 1/5 income towards personal and living expenses and applied multiplier of 11 and awarded Rs. 54,99,538/-. Furthermore, Rs.70,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal in other heads. Thus, total Rs.55,69,538/- has been awarded in favour of Respondents No.1 to 7/claimants with interest @ 4 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in which, the Insurance Company, has been held liable for payment of compensation. Hence, this appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the impugned award. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company challenged the quantum part in this appeal. The argument of learned Counsel is that the income of deceased Narendra Kumar Chanap has been overestimated by the Claims Tribunal. He further argued that a request was made by the insurance company before the Claims Tribunal for production of the deceased’s Form 16 and income tax return, however, the Tribunal declined to entertain the said request. He further submits that the Claims Tribunal has awarded the compensation in favour of two major daughter by finding them unmarried which is also not justified. Hence, it is prayed that the amount of compensation may be reduced suitably. 6. None appeared on behalf of Respondents No.4, 6 to 9. 7. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 & 5 submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has also awarded lesser amount in other heads, therefore, amount of compensation may be enhanced suitably. He also submits that the appeal 5 of the insurance company may be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. As far as the income of the deceased Narendra Kumar Chanap aged about 51 years is concerned, in this regard, the claimant is said to be the Headmaster in primary school village Hitapathar under the ‘Tribal Development Department, Government of Chhattisgarh’. As per the statements of wife of the deceased Smt. Rukhmani (AW-1), Assistant Grade-III, Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Balod O.P. Mandavi (AW-3), the salary slip of the deceased for the month of April 2017 (Ex.P-18) and the salary slip of the deceased for the month of May 2017 (Ex.P-15), shows gross salary of the deceased to be Rs.47,452/-. On the basis of above evidence, the Tribunal has also held the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.45,286/- and calculated his annual income to Rs. 5,43,432/-. There is no reason shown to disbelieve the above evidence. The above finding of the Tribunal is not found to be contrary or perverse to the facts and evidence available on record. Therefore, the argument of the appellant/insurance company that the annual income of the deceased has been overestimated is not found to be acceptable. Furthermore, though Respondents No.2 & 3/claimants are major daughters of the deceased, but, they 6 are unmarried, therefore, the Claims Tribunal was justified in giving compensation in favour of the unmarried daughters of the deceased. 10. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.55,69,538/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case? 11. As regards the income of the deceased, as discussed above, the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 45,286/-. The annual income comes to Rs. 5,43,432/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 15% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 81,514/-, the annual income comes to Rs.6,24,946/-. 12. From the annual income of the deceased, there will be statutory deduction towards income tax. The income tax slab for the financial year 2017-2018 was as follows: Income Tax Slabs in the FY 2017- 18 Income Tax Rates Taxable Income Total Tax 0 to 2.5 Lakh nil nil nil 2.5 lakh to 5 lakh 5 % Rs.2,50,000/- Rs. 12,500/- 5 lakh to 10 lakh 20% Rs.1,24,946 Rs. 24,989 Total Rs.37,489/- 7 13. In view of the same, after deduction of income tax, the annual income comes to Rs.5,87,457 (624946-37489). 14. The deceased was aged about 51 years and the claimants (total 7) are the wife, children and mother-father of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/5 i.e. Rs.1,17,491/- which dependency comes to Rs. 4,69,966/- (587457 -117491). In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 11, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 51,69,626/- (469966 x 11). The claimants are further entitled to get Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses and as per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, they are further entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- each (2,80,000) for loss of love and affection. Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.54,79,626/- (5169626+15000+15000+280000) instead of Rs.55,69,538/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 15. Resultantly, this appeal of the Insurance Company is allowed. The impugned award stands modified to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled for total 8 compensation of Rs.54,79,626/- instead of Rs.55,69,538/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The remaining part of the impugned award shall remain intact. 16. Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham