1 2025:CGHC:25188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1093 of 2019 1 - Smt. Nidhi Meshram W/o Shri Vishvraj Meshram Aged About 33 Years 2 - Ku. Swati Ramteke S/o Shri Late Ghanshyam Ramteke Aged About 31 Years Both are R/o Bakhatvar Chhal, Bada Kunaa Ke Paas, Tulsipur Rajnandgaon , Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Dayanand Sahu S/o Avadhram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Urla, Thana Bhilai - 3 Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ( Vahan No. C. G. 04 H. 6818 ) 2 - Chhabiram S/o Garib Ram, R/o Mahaveer Chowk Urla, B M Y Charoda, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ( Vahan No. C. G. 04 H. 6818 ) 3 - Prabhandhak New India Insurance Company Limited Charoda Micro Office, Bharat Petrol Pamp Ke Samne, C.G. Road, Padumnagar, Charoda / Bhilai , Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 18/06/2025 1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (for short ‘the BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 28.01.2019 passed in Claim Case No.98/2016 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.32,74,164/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.61,61,456/- under different heads on account of the death of Smt. Pushpa Ramteke, who died in the road accident pleading therein that on 13.03.2016 at about 8.00 PM, deceased Smt. Pushpa Ramteke along with sister-in-law Gouri Vaidya and Jaya Mishrekar was travelling in a car driven by Pravin. Whey they reached in front of Ford Show Room, near G.E. Road, BMY Charoda, respondent No.1 by driving the vehicle Tata Specio Gold No.6818 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the car from rear side and caused accident, due to which, occupants of car sustained severe injuries and they were taken to hospital, where Smt. Pushpa Ramteke was declared dead. It was pleaded that deceased Pushpa Ramteke was 54 years of healthy woman and was working as Head Master in the Education Department and getting monthly salary of Rs.53,303/-, she is the sole bread earner of her family and due to her untimely death, the appellants/claimants suffered irreparable loss. 3. The non-applicants/respondents filed their reply to the claim application and resisted the claim of the claimants. The learned Claims Tribunal after appreciation of the pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.32,74,161/-. 3 4. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation, erroneously deducted 1/2 recording a finding that the appellant No.2, daughter of the deceased was not dependent upon the deceased and have held only the appellant No.1 to be dependent upon the deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.30,000/- towards loss of love and affection and has not awarded any amount of compensation towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and for loss of estate. Hence, it is prayed that the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 -Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and submits that the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the deceased at the time of accident was working as headmaster in the Education Department. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.49,153/-. Perusal of the salary slip Ex.P-23 issued under the signature of Block Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, would show that deceased was working as Headmaster and her gross salary was Rs.53303/-, net income has been mentioned as Rs.49,153/-, the deduction of Rs.4150/- made also includes the deductions of Rs.4000/- towards general provident fund. The amount of GPF is 4 income of the deceased employee and is deducted for its payment to be made at the time of retirement of employee, hence, the amount of Rs.4000/- deducted towards general provident fund is in fact income. It cannot be deducted for ascertaining the total income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. While dealing with the issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Vs. Indira Shrivastava reported in (2008) 2 SCC 763, has observed as under : “19. The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. We may, however, hasten to add that from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted.” 8. Recently in a judgment dated 11th July, 2024 in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nalini and Ors. [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 4230/2019], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, allowances under the heads of transport allowance, house rent allowance, provident fund loan, provident fund and special allowance ought to be added while considering the basic salary of the victim/deceased to arrive at the dependency factor. 9. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in deducting the amount of general provident fund also, which is not sustainable. Accordingly the monthly 5 income of the deceased employee for the purpose of computing the income would be Rs.49,153 + 4000 = 53,153/-. It is ordered accordingly. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal though considered the age of the deceased in between 51 to 55 years, however, have not added the income towards future prospects. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, in case where the deceased is in permanent employment and in between the age of 50 to 60 years, there shall be addition of 15% towards future prospect in the assessed income of the deceased. In the case at hand, the deceased was working as Headmaster in the Education Department, therefore, there shall be addition of 15% towards future prospects in the income of the deceased. It is ordered accordingly. Accordingly after addition of 15% towards future prospects, the actual monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 61,125/- (53153 + 7972) and annual income works out to Rs.61,125 x 12 = 7,33,500/-. 11. Upon perusal of the salary slip, it is evident that a monthly deduction of ₹4,000/- is made towards the General Provident Fund (GPF), resulting in a total annual contribution of 48,000/-. According to Section 80C of ₹ the Income Tax Act, contributions made towards the General Provident Fund, along with other specified investments, are eligible for tax exemption up to a maximum limit of 1,50,000/- per financial year. ₹ Accordingly, the annual GPF contribution of 48,000/- made by the ₹ deceased qualifies for deduction from their gross annual income/salary for the purpose of calculating net taxable income. Accordingly after 6 deduction of Rs.48,000/- from the annual income/salary of the deceased, the taxable income of the deceased works out to Rs.6,85,500/- (7,33,500 – 48,000). 12. As per income tax rates/slabs applicable for the assessment year 2015-16, no tax was payable upto income of Rs.2,50,000/-; income tax @ 10% was payable on Rs.2,50,000/- up to Rs.5,00,000/- and 20% of income tax was payable on the amount exceeding Rs.5,00,000/- up to Rs.10,00,000/- 13. Accordingly, first Rs.2,50,000/- is not taxable income of deceased. Remaining Rs.4,35,500/- (6,85,500 -2,50,000) is taxable income. As per tax slab rate, from Rs.2,50,000 to 5,00,000/-, there is 10% tax. So income tax payable on Rs.2,50,000/-, would be Rs.25,000/-. From Rs.5,00,001/- to Rs.10,00,000/-, tax slab rate is 20%. So income tax payable on next Rs.1,85,500/- would be Rs.37,100/-. Accordingly total income tax of the deceased thus comes to Rs.62,100/- (25,000 + 37,100). 14. On this amount, 'Education Cess' at the rate of 3% i.e. Rs.1,863/- (3% of 62,100) is to be added and thus the net income tax liability of deceased for the assessment year 2015-16 comes to Rs.63,963/- (62,100 + 1,863). Hence, the total amount deductible towards income tax from the annual income of deceased comes to Rs.63,963/- and after deducting the income tax from the annual income of the deceased, the loss of annual dependency comes to Rs.7,33,500 – 63,963 = 6,69,537/-. 7 15. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellant with respect to not holding the claimant No.1/appellant No.1 to be dependent upon the deceased is concerned, admittedly the claimant/appellant No.1 though is daughter of the deceased, however, she is married and residing with her husband, therefore, it cannot be said that she was dependent upon the deceased on the date of accident. The finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the claimant No.1 is not dependent upon the deceased is correct in the facts of the case, hence, it does not call for any interference. 16. Learned Claims Tribunal after recording the aforementioned finding with respect to dependency has recorded a finding that there is only one dependent upon the deceased i.e. claimant No.2, unmarried daughter and have rightly applied the deduction of 1/2, which is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 17. There is no dispute with respect to application of multiplier of 11. There is no head for award of loss of love and affection, however, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the claimants are to be awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium. Loss of consortium to the children has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and it is held that children are also entitled for loss of consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each. In the case at hand, the appellants are daughters of the deceased, hence, they are entitled for parental 8 consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has further held that in death case, the claimants are entitled for the award of sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, therefore, the appellants are also entitled for the same. It is ordered accordingly. 18. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Loss of income : 6,69,537.00 2. 1/2 deduction towards personal expenses : 6,69,537.00 – 3,34,768.50 = 3,34,768.50 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 11 (3,34,768 x 11) : 36,82,453.00 5. For funeral expenses : 15,000.00 6. For loss of estate : 15,000.00 7. For loss of parental consortium to appellants Rs.40,000/- each (Rs.40,000 x 2) : 80,000.00 Total compensation : 37,92,453.00 19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.37,92,453.00. Any amount already paid to the appellants as compensation pursuant to the impugned award, shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of 9 filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram