1 2025:CGHC:36794 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2088 of 2019 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through- Branch Manager, Office- T.P. Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh …Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Janki Nirmalkar W/o Late Dhananjai Aged About 49 Years R/o Qr. No. F - 467, Thaulagiri Vihar Cseb Colony, Darri, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jainendra Nirmalkar S/o Late Dhananjai Aged About 30 Years R/o Qr. No. F - 467, Thaulagiri Vihar Cseb Colony, Darri, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Manish Karsh W/o Rakesh Karsh Aged About 33 Years R/o Qr. No. F - 467, Thaulagiri Vihar Cseb Colony, Darri, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Rahul Nirmalkar S/o Late Dhananjai Aged About 28 Years R/o Qr. No. F - 467, Thaulagiri Vihar Cseb Colony, Darri, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Anugraha Shilanand Bada S/o Late Asit Gosef Bada, R/o Nawapara, P.S.- Gandhi Nagar, Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Kanstens Kindo W/o L.S. Kindo R/o Kanya Parisar Road, Ajirma, P.S.- Jai Nagar, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 For Appellant : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Ms. Soniya Kuldeep, Advocate For Respondents No. 5 & 6 : Mr. Chandradeep Prasad, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 29/07/2025 1. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the liability to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,14,60,000/- fastened upon it by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District - Korba (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 17.05.2019 in Claim Case No. 107/2018. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 30.12.2016 at 05:00 P.M., when Dhananjay Nirmalkar (since deceased) along with his friend Surtidas was returning to his home from Katghora, District – Korba on his motor cycle, reached near Meera Talkies, at that time, one Tata Sumo Victa bearing registration no. CG 15 B 1262 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) driven by the Non-Applicant No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed motorcycle and caused accident. In the said accident, Dhananjay Nirmalkar suffered severe injuries on his head, he was taken to Primary Health Centre for treatment from where, he was referred to New Korba Hospital, Korba where during treatment, he died on 08.01.2017. Subsequent to the accident, an F.I.R. was registered against the Non-applicant No. 1 in concerned police station. Claimants have filed claim application before the learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on the date of accident, deceased was aged about 54 years and was working as Plant Assistant in the Chhattisgarh State 3 Power Generation Company and earning Rs. 1,24,068- per month, claimed compensation of Rs. 1,88,10,500/- from the non-applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company submits that this appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal to the claimants. Claims tribunal erred in applying deduction of 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. The Claimant No. 3 Smt. Manisha Karsh is a married daughter of the deceased which is evident from the cause-title of the claim application itself wherein, she was impleaded as Claimant No. 3 showing her to be wife of Rakesh Karsh. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the daughter Smt. Manisha Karsh, after marriage is residing in her matrimonial home and is dependent upon her husband and therefore, she cannot be treated to be dependent upon the deceased on the date of accident. He next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal while assessing income of deceased added all the receipts and considered total income of the deceased as Rs.1, 24,068/- which also includes the income from overtime and additional wages. 4. It is next contended that as per the evidence of Ranjeet Kumar Girvi (AW-3), additional wages is paid to the employees like deceased eight times in a year and not in every month. He also pointed out that the witnesses Ranjeet Kumar Ghirvi, an employee of the Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Korba, has categorically stated that the income from overtime is not the part of salary and therefore, the Claims Tribunal erred in adding Rs. 19,120/-, income from overtime and Rs. 6,243/- income from additional wages to be salary of the deceased. He also contended that the learned Claims Tribunal deducted Rs. 38,729/- as shown in the pay-slip (Ex. P/25). 4 The salary of the deceased is to be calculated after deducting income from overtime, income from additional wages and the total deductions as shown in the salary-slip, which will grossly reduce the amount of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 4/Claimants opposes the submissions of counsel for the appellant and would submit that the Claims Tribunal has computed income of the deceased based on the salary-slip produced by the claimants and proved by the evidence of witness Ranjeet Kumar Girvi (AW-3) who is an officer of the company in which, the deceased was working. She further contended that the deduction which is shown in the salary-slip is mostly towards the investment as made by the deceased like L.I.C. Provident Fund, Suraksha Nidhi and Shramik Nidhi. She contended that the deduction towards the house rent will also be treated as income because apart from the deceased, the Claimants No. 1, 2 & 4 are residing in the same house along with the deceased. She contended that the income tax shown in the income tax column only is to be deducted from the income of the deceased as it is a statutory deduction. However, she do not dispute the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the Claimant No. 3/Daughter of the deceased was married, in view of the evidence of AW -1/Claimant No. 1. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 5 & 6 (Driver and Owner) would support the impugned award. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the claim case. 8. So far as the first submission of the counsel for appellant with regard to the application of deduction of 1/4th is concerned, the issue with regard 5 to the deduction is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 wherein, it is held that where dependent family members are 2 to 3, deduction would be 1/3rd and where number of dependent family members are 4 to 6, deduction would be 1/4th. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court has consciously used the word dependent and therefore, for applying deduction, it has to be considered dependent family members on the deceased on the date of accident. The Claimant No. 3 was admittedly a married daughter as per the evidence of AW- 1/Claimant No. 1 (wife of deceased). In the aforementioned facts of the case, after marriage, married daughter will be dependent upon her husband and not upon her father, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal erred in applying deduction of 1/4th, considering the number of dependents including married daughter as four which is not sustainable and is hereby, set-aside. The appropriate deduction will be 1/3rd instead of 1/4th. It is ordered accordingly. 10.So far as the submission of counsel for the appellant with regard to the total earnings of the deceased as assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal considering the salary-slip (Ex. P/25) is concerned, in the salary-slip placed on record for the month of 01.12.2016 wold show that it includes basic pay, personal pay, dearness allowance, conveyance allowance, interim relief, overtime, additional wages, boiler professional allowance, field allowance, additional pay new, dearness allowance. 11.Submission of counsel for the appellant is that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in adding the wages toward overtime and additional 6 wages in income of the deceased. The witness Ranjeet Kumar Girvi (AW-3) Superintendent Engineer, Human Resources Department of the Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company, Korba has also made specific statement that overtime and the additional wages is not part of the salary. He further stated that additional wages is paid 08 times in a year and further that, it is paid during the work by an employee on any national holiday. 12.Deceased was working as Boiler operator in Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company. A power generation company works 24 hours a day and 07 days a week and therefore, chances for a person working there, to work either with his own will or in compulsion on the national holidays, to keep running the plant of power generation is always available and therefore, additional wages of Rs. 6,243/- which is being paid 08 times in a year will, if computed for the whole year would come to Rs. 49,944/- (6243 X 8) for a year and for each month, it comes to Rs. 4,162/- (49,944/12) and therefore to calculate the monthly income of deceased, only Rs. 4,162/- has to be added in monthly income, instead of Rs. 6,243/- as mentioned in the salary-slip. 13.So far as the ground raised by the counsel for the appellant that the Claims Tribunal erred in adding Rs. 19,120/- of overtime, as income of the deceased is concerned, true it is that overtime is not the regular income of an employee and therefore, income shown from overtime is not to be considered as part of salary for the purpose of computing compensation. 14. Now, the total monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of computing the amount of compensation would be: - 7 15. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants:- S. No. Heads Compensation 1. Basic Pay : 34,650 2. Personal Pay : 30 3. Dearness Allowance : 53,102 4. Conveyance Allowance 825 5. Interim Relief 2,807 6. Additional Wages 4,156 7. Boiler Professional Allowance 350 8. Field Allowance 1,455 9. Additional Pay New : 2,772 10. Dearness Allowance 2,714 Total Salary Rs. 1,02,861/- 16.So far as the submission of counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company that the learned Claims Tribunal has not made deduction as being shown in the salary-slip of Rs. 38,729/- is concerned, the deduction is made towards the GIS/CIS, House Rent Allowance, L.I.C. 04, L.I.C. 05, Provident Fund subway, SWA, Suraksha Nidhi, Sharmik Nidhi. The deductions as shown in the salary-slip apart from the income tax would be the investments made by the employee for his future and therefore, the deduction would be towards income tax as paid by the deceased of Rs. 17,000/- and therefore, from the gross- salary as calculated above, income tax of Rs. 17,000/- is to be deducted to calculate the net-pay for computation of the amount of compensation which would come to Rs. 95,421/- per month (112421- 17000). It is ordered accordingly. 17.Learned Claims Tribunal correctly applied multiplier of 11 and awarded Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the Claimant No. 1 towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 30,000/- towards funeral expenses and 8 amount of compensation awarded in the other conventional heads is not to the tune of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC. 130. Hon’ble Supreme Court has specified the conventional heads as to be loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium and further quantified the amount of compensation to be awarded under the other heads as Rs. 15,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- respectively. 18.In above case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the types of consortium as spousal consortium to widow/widower, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents, of Rs. 40,000/- each. In case at hand, Respondents/Claimants no. 1, 2 & 4 are wife and sons of the deceased and therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of spousal and parental consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. As this Court has awarded compensation towards loss of consortium, Respondents No. 1 to 4 will not be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of love and affection as it subsumes the compensation awarded towards loss of consortium as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076. 19. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants:- S. No. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/Dependency 95,421 X 12 = 11,45,052/- : Rs. 83,97,048/- 9 (B) Deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses (11,45,052 X 1/3 = 3,81,684) (11,45,052 – 3,81,684 = 7,63,368/-) (C) Multiplier of 11 (7,63,368 X 11 = 83,97,048/-) 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 15,000/- 3. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 15,000/- 4. Loss of parental consortium to Claimant/Appellants @ Rs. 40,000/- each (40,000 X 3) : (+) Rs. 1,20,000/- Total Compensation : Rs. 85,47,048/- 20. Now, the Appellants/Claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 85,47,048/-. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 21. At this stage, learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company has already deposited 75% of the awarded amount of compensation therefore, the amount already paid shall be adjusted and balance amount be paid in terms of award. 22. In the result, appeal filed by the insurance company is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as mentioned above. 23. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey