-1- 2025:CGHC:10958 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 348 of 2021 United India Insurance Company Ltd. By Branch Manager, T.P. Nagar, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh Through Authorized Signatory United India Insurance Company Ltd. Deputy Manager / officer In Charge (TP - Hub), United India Insurance Company Limited, 1st Floor, Lic Building Magarpara Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Jyotibai W/o Late Prem Kumar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Bharrakunda, Post Birda, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sahil Kumar S/o Late Prem Kumar Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Jyotibai, R/o Village Bharrakunda, Post Birda, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shahid Kumar S/o Late Prem Kumar Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Jyotibai, R/o Village Bharrakunda, Post Birda, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shambhulal S/o Ram Dayal Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Bharrakunda, Post Birda, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Mahetarinbai W/o Shambhulal Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Bharrakunda, Post Birda, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 6 - Shatruhan S/o Lalluram R/o Aamgaon, Post Hardibazar, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Drive of offending Vehicle (Scorpio) No. C.G. 12 A U 2692). 7 - Shravan Kumar Kanwar S/o Tihar Singh Kanwar R/o Aamgaon, Bastipara, Post Hardibazar District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Owner of offending Vehicle (Scorpio) No. C.G. 12 A U 2692). ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate For Respondents : None though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05.03.2025 1) The appellant has challenged the award dated 06.03.2021 (Annexure A/1), passed by the learned I st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Katghora, District Korba, in Motor Accidents Claim Case No. 89/2018, whereby the claim case filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has partly been allowed. 2) Mr. Anupam Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company would submit that according to the Aadhaar Card of the deceased, which was placed on record by the wife of the deceased, the date of birth of the deceased was 09.05.1985 and thus, on the date of the accident i.e. 05.06.2018, he was aged about 33 years, but the learned tribunal has assessed the compensation taking into consideration the post mortem report, where the age of the deceased is mentioned as 30 years. He would contend that the wife of the deceased has also admitted the fact that the date of birth of the deceased was 09.05.1985. 3) He would further contend that the learned tribunal has applied a multiplier of 17 taking the age of the deceased to 30 years, whereas the correct multiplier -3- would be 16. He would also contend that the learned tribunal has directed the insurance company to pay interest at the rate of 7 % per annum on the entire amount of compensation, whereas, the income with regard to future prospects, would not carry any interest. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High Court of Bombay in the matter of Smt. Kalpana Madhu Gavali and ors. vs. Maharashtra State Raod Transport Corporation, Swargate, Pune [First Appeal No. 1579 of 2006] decided on 21.09.2023. 4) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the documents. 5) The learned tribunal on the basis of the entries made in the post mortem report and oral evidence led by the parties concluded the age of the deceased to be 30 years and applied the multiplier of 17. The Aadhaar Card was produced by the claimants before the learned tribunal and the same cannot be treated as conclusive proof to prove the age of a person. The learned tribunal arrived at the conclusion with regard to the age of the deceased on the basis of the material available on record and the findings in this regard are findings of fact, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the findings recorded with regard to the age do not require interference by this Court, and thus, the contention raised by Mr. Dubey in this regard is hereby rejected. 6) Next contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard -4- to interest on the amount of future prospects. The procedure to calculate the amount of compensation is as under:- Step 1: Determine the annual income of the deceased: A. If the deceased was employed, their actual income is considered based on salary slips, tax returns, or other records. B. If the deceased was unemployed or self-employed, notional income is assessed based on prevailing wages, qualifications, and other relevant factors. Step 2: Add Future Prospects, as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. The guidelines have been provided for adding future prospects on the basis of the nature of employment: A. Permanent salaried employees:  Below 40 years: 50% of annual income added;  40-50 years: 30% of annual income added; &  Above 50 years: 15% of annual income added B. Self-employed/unorganized sector:  Below 40 years: 40% added;  40-50 years: 25% added; &  Above 50 years: 10% added. Step 3: Apply the Multiplier The multiplier is chosen based on the age of the deceased, as per the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121. Age Group Multiplier 15-25 18 -5- 26-30 17 31-35 16 36-40 15 41-45 14 51-55 11 56-60 9 61-65 7 66-70 5 71-75 3 76-80 1 81-100 0 The final compensation is calculated as: (Annual Income + Future Prospects) × Multiplier Step 4: Add Compensation Under Other Heads The additional compensation under the following heads: • Loss of consortium (for spouse): 40,000 ₹ • Loss of parental care (for children): 40,000 ₹ • Loss of estate: 15,000 ₹ • Funeral expenses: 15,000 ₹ (All these amounts are subject to periodic revision by courts.) Step 5: Final Compensation Calculation:- • (Annual Income + Future Prospects) × Multiplier • Compensation under other heads • Interest is typically granted from the date of filing the claim petition. -6- Clarification on Future Prospects & Notional Income:- •There is no separate method to assess notional income and future prospects after calculating the total compensation. •Future prospects are always calculated as a percentage of the annual income before applying the multiplier. 7) The High Court of Bombay while dealing with a similar issue in the matter of Smt. Kalpana Madhu Gavali (supra), held that the compensation granted under the head of loss of future prospects should not be subjected to payment of any interest as the future prospects are relatable to be received in the future and as such, there could not be any loss to the claimants for the payment of future prospects. 8) With great humility, I do not agree with the findings or observations made by the High Court of Bombay, firstly, there is no method to assess the notional income and future income separately, it is to be calculated together. If the deceased were alive, he would have earned more amount than assessed by the tribunal or claimed by the claimants. 9) The contention made by Mr. Dubey with regard to the interest on the amount of compensation of future prospects is hereby rejected. 10) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM