1 2025:CGHC:42849 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1321 of 2019 1. Bhuneshwari Sahu W/o Late Deonath Sahu aged about 26 yrs 2. Minor Prashant Sahu S/o Late Deonath Sahu aged about 7 yrs 3. Minor Basant Sahu S/o Late Deonath Sahu Aged About 5 Years 4. Ambika Sahu W/o Late Ramnath Sahu Aged About 56 Years 5. Pooja Sahu S/o Late Ramnath Sahu Aged About 24 Years Appellant No.2 & 3 through Legal Representative Mother Appellant No. 1, All are resident of Village Sarsiwa, Police Station Sarsiwa, District Baloda, Bazar – Bhatapara (CG) ... Appellants-claimants versus 1. Amar Singh Yadav S/o Kunji Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Satish Jaiswal Bajrang Chowk Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Offending Vehicle Tata LPT Truck Bearing Registration No. Cg -04lk - 3613), 2. Satish Jaiswal S/o Rambharos Jaiswal R/o A.S.D. Near Abdulla Tower, Moudhapara, Raipur, at present Bajrang Chowk, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Tata LPT Truck Bearing Registration No. CG04-LK-3613). 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Ambedkar Chowk, Raipur Road,baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Tata Lpt Truck Bearing Registration No. Cg -04lk – 3613). ... Respondent(s) SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 For Appellants : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Pritam Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Annkita Sriwas, For Respondent No.3 : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 25/8/2025 1. This appeal is filed by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 4.5.2019 in Claim Case No.138/2018. 2. Since the death of deceased in a road traffic accident dated 1.7.2018 involvement of offending vehicle Truck bearing CG04- LK-3613, which is driven by non-applicant No.1, owned by non- applicant No.2 and insured by non-applicant No.3, in said accident is not in dispute, therefore, this Court is not adverting to the facts of case and only considering submissions of learned counsel for respective parties on the question of enhancement of quantum of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation by assessing income of deceased as Rs.16,067/- only whereas as per salary slip of deceased, who was working as Constable in Police Department, his monthly income was Rs.21,290/-/ He also contended that deduction as mentioned in salary slip other 3 than income tax has been taken into consideration by learned Claims Tribunal, which is erroneous. He submits that as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Indira Shrivastava, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 763, income tax is only to be deducted from gross income of a salaried person and therefore the Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed income of deceased as Rs.21,290/- for the purpose of computing compensation to be awarded to claimants. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarded compensation towards loss of consortium to claimant No.2 to 4, who are mother and children of deceased. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents would submit that the Claims Tribunal discussed in detail in Para-20 of its award for considering take-home salary of deceased for the purpose of computing compensation. Compensation computed and awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record. 6. Perusal of the record would reveal that in order to prove income of deceased, claimants have submitted salary slip of deceased as Ex.P-20, which is of the month of June 2018. Deceased died in a road accident occurred on 1.7.2018. Salary slip, Ex.P-20, mentions gross salary of deceased as Rs.21,290/- and net 4 salary of Rs.16,067/- after deduction of Rs.5,223/- towards GPF, GIS and Pay Recovery (2111+300+2812). The Claims Tribunal has taken into consideration net salary of deceased for determining compensation under the head of loss of dependency. It is well settled that while determining net income of deceased, deduction towards income tax/ surcharge only should be taken into consideration. Other deductions such as GPF, GIS, repayment of loan etc., which are in the nature of savings, should not be taken into consideration to determine net salary or take-home salary of deceased. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Indira Shrivastava (supra) has observed thus:- “9. The term”income” has different connotations for different purposes. A Court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay-packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. Loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms.” In view of above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the opinion of this Court, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency determined by the Claims Tribunal by taking net salary of deceased, as mentioned in Ex.P-20, is incorrect. Hence, it is ordered that at the time of accident, income of deceased was Rs.21,290/- per month as mentioned in Ex.P-20. 7. Perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal 5 has awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium to claimant No.1-widow of deceased only and not to claimants No.2 to 4, who are children and mother of deceased. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium is governed by the principles of awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, according to which each claimant is entitled to consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each under spousal, filial and parental respectively in case claimants are wife/husband, parents and children. In the instant case, appellants No.2 to 4 are children and mother of deceased respectively and therefore, they are entitled for compensation towards loss of filial consortium and spousal consortium respectively. Hence, I deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs 40,000/- to appellant No.1 for loss of spousal consortium and a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to appellant Nos.2 & 3, being children for loss of parental consortium and a sum of Rs.40,000/- to appellant No.4 being mother of deceased towards loss of filial consortium. 8. Since, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, is to be increased by 10% after every three years in light of decision of 6 Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), therefore, appellants will be entitled to get Rs.44,000/- each for loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium respectively; Rs.16,500/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses respectively. It is ordered accordingly. 9. For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. 10.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.21,290/- per month and after adding 50% towards future prospects, as added by learned Claims Tribunal, total income comes to Rs.31,935/-. Thus, annual income of deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation comes to Rs.3,83,220/-. Out of this amount, one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased and after deducting one-fourth, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,87,415/-. By applying multiplier of 16, as applied by Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.45,98,640/-. Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellants No.2 & 3 are entitled for Rs.44,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium and appellants No.4 is entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards loss of filial consortium, as held above. Appellants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.16,500/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses, as held above. 7 Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.48,07,640/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. 11.Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount already paid to claimants/appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from total amount of compensation as calculated above. 12.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-