1 / 2 2025:CGHC:1537 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 1105 of 202 4 • Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Plot No. 29, Nehru Nagar, Commercial Complex, Bhilai, Distt. Durg C.G. (Insurer Of Truck No. C.G. 17 H 1811) ... Applicant Versus 1. Jinesh Kumar Jain S/o Dalchand Jain Aged About 54 Years R/o Flat No. A-1, V.V. Apartments, Opposite Ekta Hospital, Shanti Nagar, Raipur C.G. 2. Smt. Kiran Devi Jain W/o Jinesh Kumar Jain Aged About 54 Years R/o Flat No. A-1, V.V. Apartments, Opposite Ekta Hospital, Shanti Nagar, Raipur C.G. 3. Arpit Jain S/o Jinesh Kumar Jain Aged About 21 Years R/o Flat No. A-1, V.V. Apartments, Opposite Ekta Hospital, Shanti Nagar, Raipur C.G. (Claimants) 4. Mangauram S/o Murharam Nag R/o Sidavan, Thana- Keshkal, Distt. Bastar C.G. (Driver of Truck No. C.G. 17 H 1811) 5. Diwan Singh S/o Sardar Singh R/o Gangamunda Ward, Gandhi Nagar, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G. (Owner of Truck No. C.G. 17 H 1811) 6. Smt. Pramila Bai Kothari W/o Late Dilip Kumar Kothari Aged About 50 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund C.G. 7. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Tara Complex, G.E. Road, Power House, Bhilai, Distt. Durg C.G. (Insurer of Tavera Car No. C.G. 07 M 9019) ... Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Shrijita Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. with Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu ORDER ON BOARD 09/01 / 2025 1. This MCC is filed on the ground that calculation error is crept while passing the order dated 04.12.2017 in MAC No. 1085/2014. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 2 2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that in paragraph 5 of the impugned award, this Court assessed the income of deceased as Rs. 1,50,000/- and thereafter deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses and thereby the amount of dependency come to Rs. 75,000/- per annum. It is further contention that this Court has further awarded 50% towards future prospects which is to be calculated on Rs. 75,000/- and not on Rs. 1,50,000/- as assessed by this Court. 3. Learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 7 opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicant and would submit that there is no error in the calculation as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the impugned award. He submits that in the order it is clearly mentioned that the future prospects is awarded as 50% of the income and the income assessed by this court is Rs. 1,50,000/- and hence there is no error in the impugned award passed by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Perusal of impugned award would show that this court assessed the income of deceased as Rs. 1,50,000/- and after deducting 50% towards personal expenses, loss income for computing the amount of compensation is taken as Rs. 75,000/- per annum. Further this Court awarded 50% towards future prospects of the income which would come to Rs. 75,000/- per annum and upon adding the loss of dependency and the future prospects the income for computing the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The amount of compensation is calculated on Rs. 1,50,000/-. 6. From the above, I do not find any calculation error in computing the amount of compensation awarded by this court by impugned order. 7. Accordingly, this MCC stands dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn