1 2025:CGHC:4332 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1299 of 2017 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through its Legal Officer, the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited 301 302 , Corporate House, 169 RNT Marg , Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore (M.P.) (Respondent/Non-Applicant No. 3) [Insurer of vehicle Trialor bearing registration No. NL/01/D/6742] ... Appellant versus 1 - Khemin Bai, aged about 49 years, Wd/o Late Kartik Ram Sinha, 2 - Gopesh Kumar Sinha, aged about 22 Years, S/o Late Kartik Ram Both R/o - Attharah Acre, 26 Block, Qr. No. 2 Rajnandgaon Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Applicants/Claimants/Cross Objector) 3 - Mahavir Sahani S/o Late K. Sahani R/o Bhojpatti, P.S.- Sarai, Baishali, District – Baishali (Bihar) (Respondent/Non-applicant No.1) [Driver of vehicle Trialor bearing registration No. NL/01/D/6742] 4 - M / S Aftab Road Carrier, Through Its Manager, 48 Jakariya Street, Street Kolutola, Kolkata 70073 (West Bengal) (Respondent / Non-Applicant No. 2) [Registered owner of vehicle Trialor bearing registration No. NL/01/D/6742] (The Respondent No. 1 & 2 are mentioned as a Cross Objector) ... Respondents 2 For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 22/01/2025 1. The appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act, 1988”) challenging the award dated 24th January, 2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (for brevity ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 178 of 2015 whereby the liability of payment of compensation has been saddled upon the appellant/Insurance Company to indemnify the award of 35,50,770/- ₹ along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, till its realization. 2. As against the compensation of Rs. 79,00,000/- claimed by the unfortunate widow and son of deceased Kartik Ram Sinha, aged about 57 years and working on the post of Head Constable, by filing claim application under Section 166 of MV Act for his death during the course of treatment on 17.08.2015 due to the motor accident occurred on 19.07.2015; the Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of ₹ 35,50,770/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of claim petition, till its actual payment. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence led, material placed and submissions made by the parties, held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tailor bearing registration No. N.L. 01/D/6742 (for short “offending vehicle”) by its driver respondent No. 3- Mahavir Sahani, owned by M/s. Aftab Road Carrier, which dashed the Motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-08 WU 1577 driven by Kartik Ram Sinha (deceased), 3 who died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident during course of treatment on 17.08.2015; appellant / Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, who is insurer of offending vehicle, was held liable for payment of compensation to the claimants, as it could not establish the violation of policy conditions and assessed and awarded aforesaid sum as compensation to the claimants. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Insurance Company submits that he is confining his appeal only with regard to the fact that learned Claims Tribunal, while passing the impugned award and granting compensation in favour of the claimants to the tune of ₹ 35,50,770/-, has not deducted the income tax payable by the deceased on his annual income. He further submits that since the deceased was working on the post of Head Constable in the police department of State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, compensation awarded to the claimants on account of medical expenses of the deceased to the tune of ₹ 6,95,266/- is reimbursable from the department of the deceased and wife of deceased Khemin Bai (AW-1) herself has admitted in her cross-examination that she has received medical reimbursement of deceased, despite that amount granted towards medical expenses has been awarded to the claimants, therefore, he submits that on aforesaid two counts, amount of compensation may be reduced suitably. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2/claimants while referring to their cross-objection under Order 41, Rules 22 of the CPC for enhancement of the amount of compensation would submit that while computing the amount of compensation in paragraph 21 of impugned award, learned Claims Tribunal has not added any amount into the annual income of the deceased towards future prospect, whereas, as per 4 dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi1, the person belonging to age group of 50 – 60 years, having permanent job, must be awarded 15% on the head of future prospect, therefore, learned counsel submits that amount of compensation be assessed after adding 15% in the annual income of the deceased towards future prospect, as such, the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. 6. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the award impugned including record of Claims Tribunal. 7. While assessing annual dependency of respondents No. 1 & 2/Claimants, learned Claims Tribunal has also granted Rs. 6,95,266/- on the head of medical expenses incurred by them in getting treatment of the deceased, as he was remained admitted in hospital for treatment till his death i.e. on 17.08.2015, but the deceased was working as Head Constable in the Police Department, therefore, he was eligible to get reimbursement of the amount for his medical expenses. Even, wife of deceased i.e. Khemin Bai (AW-01) herself has admitted in paragraph 9 of her cross-examination that she had filed the medical bill of her husband (deceased) for reimbursement alongwith the original documents of treatment to the Department and had also received the amount, though she has not stated that how much amount, she has received. But, since the deceased being a Government Employee eligible to get medical reimbursement amount and his wife Khemin Bai (AW-01) herself is admitting that she had filed the medical reimbursement bill to the Department alongwith all original documents of treatment of her husband and had also received the amount on this count, however, she did not disclose that amount towards some medical bills had not been paid to the claimants, which shows that claimants had not received full amounts towards 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 5 medical bills. Therefore, it is found that amount of Rs.6,95,266/- granted by the Tribunal towards medical expenses to the claimants on account of treatment of deceased is not found to be just and proper, as such, it is required to be deducted from the total amount of compensation granted in favour of the claimants. 8. So far as not deducting income tax from the total income of deceased is concerned, when specific question was posed to learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company that whether Insurance Company has filed any document to prove the fact that annual income of the deceased i.e. Rs.4,50,084/- as per his salary slip (Ex.P-58) is fallen under the taxable income, then he submits that no any document or evidence has been filed / led by appellant/Insurance Company to prove aforesaid facts. As per salary slip (Ex. P-58) of deceased of the month of July, 2015, his monthly salary was Rs.37,507/- , as such, his annual income was Rs. 4,50,084/-. Since, it has not been proved by the Insurance Company that aforesaid annual income was taxable in the year 2015 and annual income of deceased was not so high that it can be supposed that his annual income was taxable in the year 2015, therefore, I do not find any substance on record to hold that not deducting income tax from the annual income of the deceased by the learned Tribunal is perverse or illegal, therefore, contention raised by counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in this regard is not sustainable. 9. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held that if the deceased was having permanent job and he was aged between 50-60 years at the time of incident, then 15% of his annual income be added while calculating his annual income. But in the instant case, learned Claims Tribunal has not 6 added 15% towards future prospect in the annual income of the deceased while computing the amount of compensation whereas since age of deceased was 57 years at the time of incident and he was working on the permanent post of Head Constable in the police department, therefore, his annual income ought to have been calculated by adding 15% to his annual income, as such, cross-appeal / cross-objection filed by the claimants / respondents No. 1 & 2 deserves to be allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 10. In view of above discussion, it is found that amount of compensation granted by the Claims Tribunal is required to be revisited in respect of medical expenses of Rs.6,95,266/- granted to the claimants on account medical treatment of the deceased employee and 15% of annual income of deceased /employee is required to be added while calculating the annual income of the deceased. 11. In view of above, the claimants are held entitled for compensation as per column 4 of the following table :- Serial No. (1) Head (2) Awarded by the Tribunal (3) Awarded by this Court (4) 1. Income of the deceased /salary ₹ 4,50,084/- (Per annum) ₹ 4,50,084/- (Per annum) 2. Future Prospect The Tribunal has not granted any sum on this head. As per dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & others (supra), 15% is to be added towards future prospect, then, claimants’ annual income would be 5,17,597/- ₹ [ 4,50,084/- + 67,513/-] ₹ 3. 1/3 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the 1/3rd deduction as assessed by the Tribunal. 1/3rd deduction ₹5,17,597 – 1,72,532/- ₹ = 3,45,065/- ₹ 7 deceased ₹ 4,50,084/- - ₹1,50,028/- = ₹ 3,00,056 - 4. Annual loss of dependency ₹ 3,00,056/- 3,45,065/- ₹ 5. Multiplier of 9 for assessing total loss of dependency ₹3,00,056/- x 9 = 27,00,504/- ₹ ₹3,45,065/- x 9 = Rs.31,05,585/- 6. Loss of consortium ₹ 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- ₹ 7. Loss of love & affection ₹ 35,000/- 35,000/- ₹ 8. Medical expenses ₹ 6,95,266/- Nil 9. For Funeral expenses ₹ 20,000/- 20,000/- ₹ 10. Total Compensation ₹ 35,50,770/- 33,60,585/- ₹ 12. Thus, the claimants would become entitle for ₹ 33,60,585 /- as compensation in place of 35,50,770 ₹ /- as awarded by the Tribunal. 13. In view of foregoing, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation of ₹ 35,50,770/-awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reduced to 33,60,585/-. ₹ The amount of compensation as reduced above i.e. 33,60,585/ ₹ - shall carry interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of application, till its actual payment. Rest of conditions mentioned in the award shall remain intact. The award stands modified to the above extent. 14. The Appellant / Reliance General Insurance Company Limited is granted two months’ time to deposit above reduced amount of compensation along with aforesaid interest before the concerned Claims Tribunal, if the same has not been deposited yet. No order as to costs. 15. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant / Insurance Company is allowed in part and cross-appeal filed by appellants/claimants is allowed to 8 the extent indicated hereinabove. 16. Record of Claims Tribunal be returned forthwith to the concerned Claims Tribunal alongwith copy of this order. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Amit/- AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.01.29 10:42:58 +0530