1 2026:CGHC:11013 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 794 of 2021 1 - Sangeeta Agrawal, W/o Late Mahesh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 48 Years R/o Pole No. 24, Ward No. 24, Campe-2, Bedi Colony, Shivaji Nagar, Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Harshita Agrawal, D/o Late Mahesh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 21 Years R/o Pole No. 24, Ward No. 24, Campe-2, Bedi Colony, Shivaji Nagar, Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Nitesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Mahesh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 20 Years R/o Pole No. 24, Ward No. 24, Campe-2, Bedi Colony, Shivaji Nagar, Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Yash Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Mahesh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sangeeta Agrawal (Appellant No. 01) R/o Pole No. 24, Ward No. 24, Campe-2, Bedi Colony, Shivaji Nagar, Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Khilawan Sahu S/o Kapil Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Nandani Khundani, Tahsil Dhamda District Durg Chhattisgarh ........(Driver Of Offending Vehicle Highwa Truck No. Cg 07, B. L. 6579) 2 - Dalbir Singh And Sons. R/o Plot. No. 48/5, T. P. Nagar Hathkhoj, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattosgarh ........(Owner Of Offending Vehicle Highwa Truck No. C. G. 07, B. L. 6579) 3 - Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Tara Complex, Power House Bhilai, District Durg Chhattosgarh ........(Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Highwa Truck No. C. G. 07, B. L. 6579). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate with Mr. G. P. Mathur, Advocate Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 For Respondent No.3 : Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 03/03/2026 1. The claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation, challenging the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 155 of 2019 dated 20.09.2021, whereby the Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of ₹7,04,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of the death of Mahesh Kumar Agrawal. 2. The facts in brief are that on 22.01.2019 at around 11:30 Hrs, Mahesh Kumar Agrawal was dashed by a truck bearing registration No. CG-07- BL-6579 in front of his shop. The claimants, who are widow and three children, filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein it was pleaded that the age of the deceased was 54 years and he was earning 31,000/- per month. ₹ 3. The Insurance Company filed its reply and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also filed their reply and took a plea that the deceased himself was negligent. The Insurance Company further contended that the claimants have exaggerated the income of the deceased. It is also contended that the deceased himself was driving his Activa and due to his own negligence he met with the accident. The Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter the award was passed. 4. Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the deceased was an income tax assessee. His gross income for the Assessment year 2016–17 was 3,94,845/-; for ₹ Assessment Year 2017-18 was 4,04,259/-; for Assessment Year 2018– ₹ 19 was 4,63,751/-, ₹ and for Assessment Year 2019–20 was 3,44,569/-. He ₹ would further submit that the claimants examined Smt. Rupa Pille (AW/2) 3 to prove the validity and contents of the income tax returns for the assessment years 2015 to 2020. 5. He would also argue that the learned Tribunal has not assessed the income on the basis of the income tax returns; rather, the Tribunal considered the average income on the basis of income tax returns prior to the death of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal and the loss of income on the basis of income tax returns after the death of Mr. Agarwal. 6. He would contend that the Tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased by taking the average income on the basis of income tax returns. He would further contend that there was loss of income after the death of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, and though this fact has been considered, but the learned Tribunal failed to assess the loss of dependency accordingly. He would also contend that Devdutt (AW/3), an employee of the shop, has categorically stated that there would be loss of income of the shop in the near future. He would argue that under the conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has granted meagre amounts to the claimants. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions and submit that the learned Tribunal has taken the average income of the deceased based on the income tax returns and assessed the loss of dependency. He would contend that Devdutt (AW/3) in his cross-examination admitted the fact that the shop is being run by the claimants at the same place as it was being run by late Mahesh Agarwal. He would further argue that under the conventional heads, the Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The claimants produced income-tax documents of the deceased marked as Exhibits P-14 to P-17. From Exhibit P-14 (Assessment Year 4 2016-17), the net income of the deceased is shown as 3,59,470/-. ₹ From Exhibit P-15 (Assessment Year 2017-18), the net income is ₹3,57,570/-. From Exhibit P-16 (Assessment Year 2018-19), the net income appears to be 4,10,470/-. The average annual income of the ₹ deceased for the above three assessment years comes to 3,75,836/- ₹ ( 3,59,470 + 3,57,570 + 4,10,470 = 11,27,510 ÷ 3) and accordingly, ₹ ₹ ₹ ₹ the average monthly income of the deceased is assessed at 31,319/-. ₹ 10. The applicants also filed Exhibit P-17, relating to Assessment Year 2019- 20, after the death of the deceased, which shows the family’s net income as 3,42,040/- per annum, i.e., 28,503/- per month; thus, ₹ ₹ considering the income of the deceased during his lifetime and the income of the family after his death, the difference in monthly income comes to 2,816/- ₹ ( 31,319 – 28,503). ₹ ₹ 11. It is an admitted fact that the shop which was being run by the deceased is still in existence. After the death of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, the income tax return was submitted by the claimants. Devdutt (AW/3) in his evidence has categorically admitted the fact that the shop is being run by the claimants and the status of the business is almost the same as earlier; thus, there was no actual loss of income; rather, there was a loss of management, therefore, the Tribunal assessed the loss of earning at 6,000/- per month, which appears to be proper. ₹ 12. The Tribunal deducted 1/4th looking to the number of dependents and applied multiplier 11 as the age of the deceased was 54. The Tribunal granted 15,000/- for funeral expenses, 15,000/- for loss of estate, ₹ ₹ and 80,000/- for loss of consortium. However, the Tribunal failed to ₹ grant compensation for future prospects (10%) and also failed to grant compensation for loss of consortium to two of the claimants out of four claimants; thus, the compensation requires reconsideration and same is revisited as under:- 5 Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Annual Income 72,000/- ₹ 72,000/- ₹ 2. Future Prospect None 10 % = 79,200/- ₹ 3. Deduction ¼ th = 54,000/- ₹ 59,400/- ₹ 4. Multiplier X 11 = 5,94,000/- ₹ 6,53,400/- ₹ 5. Loss of Estate 15,000/- ₹ 18,000/- ₹ 6. Funeral expenses 15,000/- ₹ 18,000/- ₹ 7. Loss of Consortium ₹40,000 + 40,000 = 80,000/- 80,000 (Claimants ₹ No.1 & 2) + (Claimants No.3 & 4) 80,000 x 20% = 96,000 = 1,76,000/- ₹ TOTAL 7,04,000/- ₹ 8,65,400/- ₹ Final compensation 8,65,400 – 7,04,000 = ₹ ₹ 1,61,400/- ₹ In view of the above calculation, the claimants shall be entitled to an additional sum of 1,61,400 ₹ /-. The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation 1,61,400 ₹ /- with interest @ 9% per annum to the appellants/claimants within a period of 60 days. Rest of the terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim