1 / 9 2025:CGHC:23063 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1192 of 2019 1. Smt. Ahilya Sahu W/o Late Praveen Kumar Sahu Aged About 25 Years 2. Deepak @ Priyanshu Sahu S/o Late Praveen Kumar Sahu Aged About 6 Years Minor Represented Through Mother ie. Appellant No.1 3. Loknath Sahu S/o Sukdev Sahu Aged About 53 Years 4. Smt. Anita Sahu W/o Lpknath Sahu Aged About 50 Years 5. Sukdev Sahu S/o Late Punuram Sahu Aged About 78 Years 6. Naveen Kumar Sahu S/o Loknath Sahu Aged About 26 Years All are R/o Village Kailashpur (Dongripali) Post, Police Station And Tahsil- Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Iqbal Singh S/o Lakha Singh Jaat Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Gaade, Police Station Gumaan District Batala, Gurdaspur Punjab, Present Address- Tirupati Roadlines Company, Tatibandh Police Station Tatibandh, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Driver of the Vehicle No. C G 04/ J B /8462). 2. M/s Tirupati Transport Corporation Bilaspur Road Near, Vikrant Battery Tatibandh, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Owner of the Vehicle No. C G 04/ J B /8462) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Regional Office Board Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Madina Manzil, Kachhari Chowk, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer of the Vehicle No. C G 04/ J B /8462). --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Ms. Anamika Jain, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Deverishi Thakur, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 9 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 11/06/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 12.03.2019 passed by Learned Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 580/2016, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 11,95,200/- as compensation in injury case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 30.01.2016 Praveen Kumar Sahu with his daughter Kumari Veena Sahu was going from Pithora to his village Kailashpur (Dongripali) on his motor cycle driving on his side, when they reached near Dongripali Chowk, non-applicant No. 1/ driver of the truck no. CG-04/JB/8462 drove the truck rashly and negligently dashed Praveen Kumar Sahu and his daughter Kumari Veena Sahu. In the accident, Praveen Kumar Sahu and Kumari Veena Sahu died on the spot. Report of the accident was lodged in the police station Pithora, district Mahasamund (CG), based on which Crime number 17/2016 was registered for alleged offence under Section 279, 304 (A) IPC against the driver of the truck. 3. Appellants who are widow, children, parents and grand father of deceased filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 50,50,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 30 years of age, was an able bodied person. At the time of accident he was in the business of driving harvester and tractor, from which he was earning about ₹ 2,50,000/- per year and ₹ 1,00,000/- from agricultural income to maintain himself and his family. Due to untimely death 3 / 9 of the deceased Praveen Kumar Sahu, the applicants have been deprived of his income and love and affection. 4. Respondent No. 1 & 2/ Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the truck submitted their reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further stated that deceased Praveen Kumar Sahu himself is responsible in the accident because while driving his motorcycle negligently, he tried to cross the road without looking to both sides at the square, due to which the motorcycle collided with the offending truck going in its direction at its normal speed. On the date of accident, non- applicant No. 1 was having a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending truck and it is insured with non-applicant No. 3. The driver, owner and insurer of the motorcycle number CG-06 / GE / 2559 have not been arrayed as parties in the case, therefore, the application is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party. 5. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company also filed its reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application. It was further stated that on the date of the accident, driver non-applicant No.1 was not possessed with valid and effective driving license. The offending truck was being driven without permit, fitness certificate. In such a situation, the insurance company is not liable for satisfying any compensation. The accident was a result of negligence on the part of driver of the motorcycle. There is contributory negligence of the driver of motorcycle in the accident. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Praveen Kumar Sahu died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of truck by non-applicant 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy, contributory 4 / 9 negligence and non-joinder of parties were not found to be proved and calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 11,95,200/- as total compensation with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 7. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the income of deceased as ₹ 2,69,365/- p.a. which was disclosed before the Income Tax Department, during lifetime of the deceased by submitting income tax returns, by misreading the evidence of AW-3, Alok Patnayak, Income Tax Officer. She next contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding appropriate amount of compensation under other conventional heads. She contended that the appellants in support of pleadings and evidence of the income of deceased as ₹ 2,69,365/- p.a. has submitted PAN card, acknowledgment of income tax retuns for assessment year 2015-16. The said income tax returns was submitted with the income tax department prior to the date of accident, hence, it canot be disbelieved. She also pointed out that to prove the authenticity of the income tax returns, the appellants-claimants have examined officer of the income tax department as AW-3. In the evidence of this witness it has not come that the document Ext. P-8 in any manner a false and facricated document. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and further submits that the Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidnece of AW-3, Alok Patnayak, Income Tax Officer, has righlty came to the conclusion that the appellants-claimants failed to prove the submission of income tax returns to be a valid document as the official from the office where, the income tax return stated to have been submitted has not been examined. He further submits that the witnesses examined before the Claims Tribunal shown his unawareness with the submission of income tax returns in the concerned office and depositing of 5 / 9 tax pursuant thereto. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is based on appreciation of evidence. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 10. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the parties with respect to income of the deceased, perusal of document Ext. P-8, acknowledgment of income tax return of the assessment year 2015-16, would show that it bears Permanent Account Number (PAN) detail and seal of income tax service centre. It also bears seal affixed on the acknowledgment hanced over to the assessee. In the said document, the gross total income of Pravin Kumar Sahu is mentioned as ₹ 2,69,365/- and also the agricultural income is mentioned as ₹ 1,10,600/-. In the computation sheet enclosed along with Ext. P-8, the tax due is mentioned as ₹ 1,932/-. According to the provisions of Section 87A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there is rebate of tax up to ₹ 2,000/- as per the insertion by Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 04.01.2014. Section 87A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is extracted below for ready reference: “87A. Rebate of income-tax in case of certain individuals.- An assessee, being an individual resident in India, whose total income does not exceed five hundred thousand rupees, shall be entitled to a deduction, from the amount of income-tax (as computed before allowing the deductions under this Chapter) on his total income with which he is chargeable for any assessemnt year, of an amount equal to hundred per cent. Of such income-tax or an amount of two thousand rupees, whichever is less.” 11. In the aforementioned facts of the case, there is provision under the Income Tax Act of getting rebate on tax to be deposited, when the income of the assessee is less than ₹ 5 Lakh. Further to prove the income tax returns acknowledment, the claimants have examined Mr. Alok Patnaik as AW-3. In his evidence he stated that the seal affixed on the acknowledgment is not of his office but it might be of income tax service centre. The said witness was 6 / 9 extensively cross examined, however, in cross examination no question was put to the said witness that the said document is forged and fabricated document and it is not issued from the authorised office. The income tax returns was submitted on 16.11.2015, whereas the assessee met with the accident on 30.01.2016. 12. From the aforementioned facts, it is apparent that the income tax return was submitted by the deceased prior to the date of accident and the accident of a person cannot be apprehended. Therefore, in the facts of the case and the evidence available on record, in the opinion of this Court, Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the income of deceased as mentioned in the Income tax returns, Ext. P-8. The said finding is erroneous, not sustainable, accordingly it is set aside. 13. For the foregoing discussion, I am inclined to accept the income of deceased as mentioned in Ext. P-8 ie., ₹ 2,69,365/- p.a.. As the said income is not taxable in view of the rebate under Section 87-A of the Income Tax Act, the income as mentioned in Ext. P-8 is acceptable as the annual income of deceased for the purpsoe of computing the amount of compensation. 14. Learned Claims Tribunal has held the deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses of the deceased considering only appellant no. 1, 2 & 4 to be dependent upon the deceased and appellant No. 3 being father and appellant No. 5 being grandfather and appellant No. 6 to be brother of deceased to be not dependent. Before this Court also, learned counsel for appellants-claimants could not able to point out that appellant No. 3, father of deceased, was in any manner dependent upon the deceased. Hence, I do not find any error in applying deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and it is affirmed. Claims Tribunal has applied multiplier of 16 which is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. 7 / 9 reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Claims Tribunal has also added 40% to the income of deceased towards future prospects which is also in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Tribunal has also awarded amount of ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, ₹ 50,000/- towards loss of love and affection diversifying to ₹ 10,000/- to each of the appellants-claimants, ₹ 40,000/- is awarded towards loss of spousal consortium to appellant No. 1 and ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate. Though the amount of compensation towwards funeral expenses and loss of estate is correctly awwarded, however, the loss of consortium has not been appropriately awarded. Appellant No. 1, being widow of deceased, is entitled for ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium, appellant No. 2, child of deceased, is entitled for ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium and appellants No. 3 & 4, being parents of deceased, are entitled for ₹ 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. As this Court is awarding compensation towards loss of consortium, therefore claimants will not be further entitled for compensation under the head of love and affection, accordingly the compensation awarded as loss of love and affection is set aside. 15. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires recomputation, which is as under. 16. The annual income of deceased is taken as ₹ 2,69,365/-. Upon adding 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, yearly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to ₹ 3,77,111/-. After deducting 1/3 towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to ₹ 2,51,407/-. Upon applying multiplier of 16 to the annual loss of 8 / 9 dependency as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as the deceased was about 31 years of age on the date of accident, total loss of dependency will come to ₹ 40,22,512/-. Besides the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency, appellants- claimants shall further be entitled for ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium to appellant No. 1, ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium to appellant No. 2, ₹ 40,000/- each to appellants No. 3 & 4 towards loss of filial consortium, ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Particulars Compensation A) Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 2,69,365/- B) Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 40% (₹ 2,69,365 x 40% = ₹1,07,746) ₹ 2,69,365 + ₹ 1,07,746= ₹ 3,77,111/- C) Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses (3,77,111 x 1/3= ₹ 1,25,704); ₹ 3,77,111 - ₹ 1,25,704 = ₹ 2,51,407/- D) Multiplier of 16 ₹ 2,51,407 x 16 = ₹ 40,22,512/- ₹ 40,22,512/- Spousal Consortium to appellant No. 1 ₹ 40,000/- Parental Consortium to appellant No. 2 ₹ 40,000/- Filial Consortium to appellants No. 3 & 4 ₹ 80,000/- Loss of estate ₹ 15,000/- Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- Total ₹ 42,12,512/- 17. Now the appellants-claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 42,12,512/- instead of ₹ 11,95,200/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the appellant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from 9 / 9 the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 18. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn