1 2025:CGHC:57887 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1257 of 2018 1 - H. D. F. C. Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager - H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - 3rd Floor, Chaabra Complex Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle Number Cg-07-C-0866), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Saroj Tigga W/o Late Laurance Tigga Aged About 44 Years R/o Yamuna Vihar, Jamnipali, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Suneet Tigga S/o Late Laurance Tigga Aged About 26 Years R/o Yamuna Vihar, Jamnipali, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sunita Tigga D/o Late Laurance Tigga Aged About 23 Years R/o Yamuna Vihar, Jamnipali, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Pankaj Singh S/o Ravinder Singh Aged About 29 Years Address - Zone Number 3, Ward Number 35, New Khursipara Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehilce No. Cg-07-C-0866)., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 5 - Balvinder Singh S/o Wariyam Singh C/o H.T.C. Transport Nagar, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.-07- C-0866), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27/11/2025 1. The insurance company has preferred the present appeal assailing the liability imposed upon it by the learned Claims Tribunal, contending that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the established breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is urged that the driver of the offending vehicle was operating the vehicle without a valid permit, which constitutes a fundamental violation of the policy. In this regard, the concerned official from the RTO, Durg was examined, and the evidence adduced clearly demonstrated the absence of a valid permit at the time of the accident. Despite such categorical material being placed on record, the learned Claims Tribunal did not properly consider or assign due weight to this proven breach, thereby erroneously fastening liability upon the insurance company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, 1908 has 3 been preferred seeking permission to produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, which, according to him, merits due consideration by this Court. It is further contended that, in determining the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal committed an error in not deducting 30% of the assessed income towards income tax liability, despite such deduction being necessary in accordance with law. Counsel also argues that the Tribunal has incorrectly assessed the dependency, as the claimant is the sole dependent and the calculation has not been made in a proper manner. In addition, it is urged that the Tribunal has failed to correctly apply the monthly salary of the deceased while computing the compensation, and therefore, the entire assessment warrants reconsideration. 3. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the tribunal has rightly considered the claim of the appellant and has rightly passed the award which is not required to be interfered with. 4. None for respondents No. 2 to 5. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From a careful perusal of the record, it emerges that the principal ground raised regarding the alleged violation of the terms of the insurance policy pertains to the absence of a valid permit for the offending vehicle; however, the learned Tribunal has duly considered this aspect while appreciating the testimony of Hemant 4 Jaiswal, A.G.-II from the RTO Office, Durg, and has further taken into account Ex. D-3, being the copy of the permit, which clearly indicates that a permit had been issued by the RTO Office at Raipur. Although the insurance company contended that Ex. D-2 had not been issued by the Raipur RTO, it failed to examine or produce the competent authority from the said office to substantiate this claim, thereby rendering the objection unproved and rightly disregarded by the Tribunal. With respect to the deduction of income tax from the income of the deceased, it appears that the Tribunal has not made any deduction under this head, despite the settled position of law laid down repeatedly by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, in cases where the deceased was an income-tax payee, appropriate deduction towards income tax must be made while computing the income for the purpose of awarding compensation. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hare Krushna Mahanta vs. Himadari Sahu & Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 262 has observed as under:- “9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is borne from the record that the Claimant-Appellant had agreed on the additional consolidated sum granted by the High Court. It is imperative for this Court, however, to reiterate that despite such consent, the objective when granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party. This came to be reiterated by this Court recently in Meena Devi v. Nunu 5 Chand Mahto reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204, wherein it was observed:” "17. The Tribunal/Court ought to award "just" compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount." 8. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the deceased was employed with NTPC, Korba, and was serving on the post of Sub Engineer Grade-I, and therefore his monthly income is liable to statutory deductions in accordance with the applicable income-tax slab. Considering the total monthly earnings of the deceased, which amounted to Rs. 1,02,794/-, a mandatory deduction of 10% towards income tax, i.e., Rs. 10,279/-, is required to be made. Thus, after deducting the said amount, the net monthly income of the deceased, which is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing compensation, comes to Rs. 92,515/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 11,10,180/- per annum. 9. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 30% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 3,33,054/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 14,43,234/-. 10. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 50 years and there are three claimants, so deduction towards personal 6 expenses would be 1/3 (Rs. 4,81,078/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 9,62,156/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 13, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 1,25,08,028/-. The claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 are further entitled for Rs. (40,000X3+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,44,000/- for consortium in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 1,25,08,028/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X3+10% +10%). Rs. 1,44,000/- 03 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 04 Towards Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- 7 along with increase of 10% in every three years. Total Rs. 1,26,88,028/- 11. For the reasons mentioned herein-above, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 1,49,22,746/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 1,26,88,028/-. The claimants are entitled to get Rs.1,26,88,028/- in place of Rs. 1,49,22,746/-. The award is modified to the above extent. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat