1 2025:CGHC:26357 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1554 of 2019 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 2nd Floor, Gurukripa Towers, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Non - Applicant No.3), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Shilpa Kaushik Wd/o Late Harish Kumar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Parsada, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No.1), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vedant Kumar Kaushik S/o Late Harish Kumar Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Shilpa Kaushik Aged 32 Years (Respondent No.1). R/o Village Parsada, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No. 2), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kush Kumar Kaushik S/o Late Harish Kumar Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Shilpa Kaushik Aged 32 Years (Respondent No.1). R/o Village Parsada, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No.3), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sadanand Khanditt S/o Ganga Khanditt R/o Kasturba Nagar Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, C/o - G.L.C. (P). Probable Address Village Sirki, Tahsil Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, (Driver). (Non - Applicant No.1), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - V.V. Transport C-28 Garuda Nagar, Korba, Probable Address Dipka Katghora Road, Gobarghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Non - Applicant No.2), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 MAC No. 1123 of 2019 1 - Smt. Shilpa Koushik W/o Late Harish Koushik Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Parsada, Police Station Sirgitti, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vedant Kumar Koushik S/o Late Harish Koushik Aged About 6 Years Minor They Are Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shilpa Koushik, R/o Village Parsada, Police Station Sirgitti, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kush Kumar Koushik S/o Late Harish Koushik Aged About 7 Years Minor They Are Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shilpa Koushik, R/o Village Parsada, Police Station Sirgitti, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants Versus 1 - Sadanand Khanditt S/o Ganga Khanditt R/o Kasturba Nagar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh C/o G L C (P) Presently R/o Village Sirki Tehsil- Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - V V Transport C- 28 Garuna Nagar Korba R/o Deepka Katghora Road Gobarghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager United India Insurance Ltd. Guru Vihar Tower Near Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents MAC No. 1554/2019 For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate MAC No. 1123/2019 For Appellants : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 20/06/2025 3 1. This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No. 1554/2019 challenging the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 04.05.2019 passed by the IXth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 47/2016 whereby, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,00,11,430/- as amount of compensation to the respondents/claimants and the claimants have filed appeal bearing MAC No. 1123/2019 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 17.12.2015, when Harish Kaushik (since deceased) was traveling towards Bilaspur from Korba in his Car and reached near Ratanpur Bypass, at that time, the offending vehicle i.e. Tanker bearing registration no. CG 12 AL 1222 which was being driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road, dashed the Car of deceased Harish Kaushik and caused accident. In the said accident, the deceased Harish Kaushik suffered serious injuries and he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was registered bearing Crime No. 304/2015, P.S. Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Learned counsel for the appellant in MAC No. 1554/2019 submits that the learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in assessing the income of the deceased based on the Income Tax Return (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the I.T.R.) submitted by the deceased during his lifetime for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 overlooking the other oral and documentary evidence 4 brought on record. Respondents/claimants could not be able to prove the partnership of the deceased with one Om Prakash Kaushik (AW – 2). Even after granting time by the learned Claims Tribunal, they could not be able to produce the partnership deed and the accounts. 4. He further submits that the appellant/insurance company has also examined the other independent witnesses who in their statement have stated that the deceased Harish Kaushik was engaged in criminal activity and have obained money for providing government job. The Head Constable namely Kamal Sahu, posted at Police Station – Chakarbhhata, District – Bilaspur is also examined as AW - 3 to prove that the criminal case is registered against the deceased and the other persons named therein. The income disclosed by the deceased in the I.T.R. of the assessment year 2014-15 and 2015-16 is not from the legal sources. Hence, the said income cannot be taken into consideration as income of the deceased for the purpose of computing the amount of compensation. The deceased was a terminated employee of Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C.), herence, there cannot be any income of the terminated employee as disclosed in the I.T.R. In support of his contention, he referred to the deposition of the witnesses Jagan Sai Toppo (AW -1), Smt. Savita Sahu (NAW – 2), Smt. Komal Sahu (NAW – 3), Mr. Deepesh Kumar Shukla (NAW - 4). No other ground is raised by the counsel for the appellant before this Court during the course of argument. 5. Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the non-applicant/claimants in MAC No. 1554/2019 submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has passed the impugned award upon appreciation of the facts and evidence with respect to the accident and death of deceased Harish 5 Kaushik in the motor accident. He submits that though the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the nature of occupation and income of deceased as proved by the I.T.R. (Ex. P/2 and P/3), however, while computing the amount of compensation, the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded appropriate amount of compensation on other conventional heads. The leaned Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium, for which, the non-applicants have filed separate appeal bearing MAC No. 1123/2019 for enhancement of compensation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the claim case. 7. So far as the sole ground raised by Mr. Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the appellant in MAC No. 1554/2019 that the income as disclosed in the I.T.R. cannot be considered to be the legal income of the deceased, to appreciate the submission fo the counsel for the appellant, I have perused the record of claim case. Death of Late Harish Kaushik in the motor vehicular accident is not in dispute. The offending vehicle to be insured with the appellant/Insurance Company is also not in dispute. There is no challenge to the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that there is no breach of conditions of insurance policy. 8. Perusal of the I.T.R. submitted by the deceased during his lifetime for the assessment year 2014-15 would show that it was deposited on 02.12.2015 and the I.T.R of the assessment year 2015-16 was deposited on the same date i.e. 02.12.2015. Along with the I.T.R., the claimants have also enclosed the computation sheet and the pre-paid taxes showing that the pre-paid tax for the assessment year 2014-15 6 is Rs. 36,200/- and for the assessment year 2015-16 is Rs. 91,313/-. From the said evidence available on record, it is apparent that the deceased has paid the tax to the Income Tax Department as advance tax. The Income Tax Inspector of the Income Tax Department namely, Anil Kumar Sigh is examined before the learned Claims Tribunal as AW-4. He in his evidence has stated that he has brought the certified copy of the I.T.R. fo the year 2015-16 in which, the income is disclosed as Rs. 8,01,220/- and has also paid the income tax vide Ex. P/2. The income of the assessment year 2014-15 is disclosed as Rs. 5,00,230/-. In view of the aforementioned evidence, the document submitted by the claimants as Ex. P/2 and Ex. P/3 has been proved by Anil Kumar Singh (AW-4) who is the officer of the Income Tax Department. 9. When once, the deceased during his lifetime has submitted the income tax return disclosing his income as mentioned therein and also, the advance tax was deducted from his bank account, the income as disclosed and tax paid, cannot be disbelieved for any extraneous consideration. The I.T.R. Ex. P/2 and Ex. P/3 are the government documents which has been issued by the Income Tax Department as an acknowledgment of the I.T.R. submitted by the deceased. The submission of the counsel for the appellant that the income disclosed cannot be accepted to be legal income, because of pendency of criminal case lodged against the deceased, in the opinion of this Court, is not acceptable. 10.There may be allegation and complaint against any person, based upon which, the criminal case is registered. However, unless and until, it is proved before the Court of Law that any person has committed the 7 offence for which, the complaint is lodged, no inference can be drawn that the income as disclosed is the illegal income and could not be taken to be the income of the deceased. The said submission is therefore, repelled. 11.Further, it cannot be said that the income disclosed is to obtain the undue advantage of higher compensation because no one can predict his death through an accident and therefore also, the submission of the counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that the I.T.R. should be disbelieved in proof of the income is not sustainable. No other ground is raised by the counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, MAC No. 1554/2019 filed by the Appellant/Insurance Company is liable to be and is hereby, dismissed. 12.So far as the submission of Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the non-applicants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation on the other conventional heads is concerned, perusal of the impugned award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses which is correct, in tune with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Further, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium. In the award, it is not mentioned as to the amount of compensation awarded under the consortium is under which head of consortium. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in 8 (2018) 8 SCC has explained the types of consortium and held that the there are three types of consortium i.e. spousal consortium for wife/husband, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents. In the case at hand, the Appellants No. 1 is wife of the deceased and the Appellants No. 1 & 2 are the minor children of the deceased. Even if, the loss of consortium awarded is for the Appellant No. 1/Widow of the deceased, however, the Appellants No. 2 & 3 are not awarded the amount of compensation under the head of parental consortium. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram (Supra), the Appellants No. 2 & 3 are also held entitled for amount of compensation under the head of loss of parental consortium of Rs. 40,000/- each (total Rs. 80,000/-). It is ordered accordingly. 13. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. 14. Thus, the Tribunal has correctly computed the loss of dependency of Rs.99,41,430/-, Rs. 40,000/- as loss of consortium to the Respondent No. 1, Rs. 15,000 towards loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Claimants No. 2 & 3 shall be further entitled for loss of parental consortium of Rs. 40,000/- each (i.e. total 80,000), making the total compensation as Rs. Rs.1,00,91,430/- only. This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 to 3 as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 9 16. In the result, the appeal MAC No. 1123/2019 filed by the claimant is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company bearing MAC No. 1554/2019 is dismissed. 17. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey