1 2025:CGHC:61242 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 436 of 2024  Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited, Through - Its Legal Manager, Present Address- Office No. 501 And 512, 5th Floor, D.B. City Corporate Park, Block No.9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Insurer ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Saroj Bai Deshmukh, W/o Chhannulal Deshmukh, Aged About 55 Years R/o M.I.G. 1/185, Sector 1, Deendayal Upadhyay Colony, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 2. Rahul Deshmukh S/o Late Chhannulal Deshmukh Aged About 30 Years R/o M.I.G. 1/185, Sector 1, Deendayal Upadhyay Colony, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Mukesh Kumar Nishad S/o Bramha Nishad Aged About 31 Years Sakunat Schoolpara, Ward No. 18, Village Bamhani Balod, District- Balod Chhattisgarh (Driver) 4. Tarkeshwar Kumar S/o Maniklal Aged About 35 Years Sakunat House No. 539, Village And Post Nikum Durg, District- Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Adv. along with Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Adv. For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Adv. For Respondent No.3 & 4 : Mr. Suraj Patel, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Adv. Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.12.16 17:49:29 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 16-12-2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant – Insurance Company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the award passed by learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 696/2022 dated 8.1.2024 whereby learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 85,73,863/- with interest @ 9% on account of death of Channulal Deshmukh. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 4.7.2021 at about 5:00 pm, the offending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No. CG-07-CA- 0163 being driven by respondent No. 3 herein, namely, Mukesh Kumar Nishad in rash and negligent manner, dashed Channulal Deshmukh. In the accident, Channulal Deshmukh sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment on 9.7.2021. Claimants, who are widow and major son of the deceased moved claim application claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,08,00,000/-. They pleaded that the deceased was aged 59 years and was earning Rs.1,14,563/- per month working as Assistant Grade–I in Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited. Insurance Company filed reply and took a specific plea that there was delay of 54 days in registration of FIR and asserted that present is a case of implantation of vehicle. Driver and owner of offending vehicle filed 3 reply and denied the averments made in claim application. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter award impugned was passed. 3) Learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company submits that there was delay of 54 days in registration of FIR and same has not been explained properly by the claimants and for the first time, involvement of offending vehicle was disclosed in the FIR lodged on 26.8.2021. He further submits that learned Tribunal erred in law in deducting only 10% of the income of deceased towards income tax whereas looking to the income of the deceased, learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the deduction towards Income Tax as per the income tax slabs applicable in the financial year 2021-22. He prays to set aside the award impugned. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They submit that learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6) With regard to delay in registration of FIR, merg intimation was registered on 9.7.2021 by one Balram and after merg inquiry, police registered FIR on 26.8.2021, thus there was no delay on 4 the part of claimants in registration of FIR and contention made by Mr. Sharma in this regard cannot be accepted. 7) In the case at hand, the spinal issue would be whether income tax has to be deducted from the income of the deceased as per the income tax slabs applicable on taxpayers for the financial year 2021-22 or not ? 8) Admittedly, learned Tribunal has held the gross salary of the deceased to be Rs.1,14,563/-, thus annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.13,74,756/- but the learned Tribunal deducted 10% of the annual income towards income tax which is contrary to the income tax slabs for the year 2021-22 for individuals below 60 years of age. This Court is computing appropriate deduction towards income tax as per the income tax slabs for the year 2021-22 pertaining to income of the deceased as under :- Income Level Tax Rate Deduction Rs. 0/- to Rs. 2,50,000/- NIL NIL Rs.2,50,001/- to Rs. Rs.5,00,000/- 5% Rs.12,500/- Rs.5,00,001/- to Rs.7,50,000/- 10% Rs.25,000/- Rs. 7,50,001/- to Rs.10,00,000/- 15% Rs.37,500/- Rs. 10,00,001/- to Rs.12,50,000/- 20% Rs.50,000/- Rs.12,50,001 to Rs.13,74,756/- 25% Rs.31,189/- TOTAL Rs.1,56,189/- 9) From the perusal of record, it is evident that learned Tribunal has deducted Rs.1,41,703/- towards income tax whereas after applying the income tax slabs for the year 2021-22, appropriate 5 deduction towards income tax would be Rs.1,56,189/-. 10) Learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 9 looking to the age of the deceased ; deducted 1/3rd dependency towards personal expenses of the deceased and awarded 15% dependency towards future prospects. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 16,500/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and awarded Rs. 88,000/- towards loss of consortium looking to the number of dependents. In my opinion, learned Tribunal has awarded appropriate compensation under these heads and there is no scope for interference. 11) In view of the discussion made in paras 8 and 9, this Court is re- computing the compensation as below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Annual Income Rs.13,74,756/- Rs.13,74,756/- 2. Annual Income after income tax deduction Rs.13,74,756 – Rs.1,41,703 = Rs.12,25,053/- Rs.13,74,756 – Rs.1,56,189 = Rs.12,18,567/- 3. Annual Income adding Future Prospect Rs. 14,08,890/- (@15%) Rs.14,01,352 /- (@15%) 4. Annual income after Deduction towards personal expenses Rs. 9,39,207/- (@1/3) Rs.9,34,235/- (@1/3) 5. Annual Income after applying Multiplier Rs.84,52,863/- (@9) Rs. 84,08,115/- (@9) 6. Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- 7. Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- 6 8. Loss of Consortium Rs.88,000/- (two claimants) Rs.88,000/- (two claimants) TOTAL Rs.85,73,863/- Rs.85,29,115/- 12) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.85,73,863/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is reduced to Rs.85,29,115/-. Rest all the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13) In result, this appeal is allowed in part to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a