1 2026:CGHC:8273 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1294 of 2022 1. Smt. Anju Tiwari W/o Late Yashwant Tiwari Aged About 44 Years R/o Dhankar Chauk Tikarapara, Ward No. 55 Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2. Ku. Supriya Tiwari D/o Late Yashwant Tiwari Aged About 20 Years R/o Dhankar Chauk Tikarapara, Ward No. 55 Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 3. Anurag Tiwari S/o Late Yashwant Tiwari Aged About 18 Years R/o Dhankar Chauk Tikarapara, Ward No. 55 Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 4. Smt. Kaushal Tiwari W/o Late Motilal Tiwari Aged About 70 Years R/o Dhankar Chauk Tikarapara, Ward No. 55 Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Mohd. Akram S/o Gulam Mohammad Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 22, Subhash Nagar Mahasamund, Tahsil And District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Tata Indigo Car Bearing No. Cg 04 Hj 2216) 2. Santosh Kumar Gupta S/o Suresh Prasad Gupta Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Pitiyajhar Road Mahasamund, Police Station, Tahsil And District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Tata Indigo Car Bearing No. Cg 04 Hj 2216) 3. Regional Manager The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Office - 1, Fafadih Chauk, Tank Business Tower, 1st Floor Raipur Fafadih, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of Tata Indigo Car Bearing No. Cg 04 Hj 2216) ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.02.17 10:43:11 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Mohd. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 16.2.2026 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No. H-68/2020 dated 17.6.2022 whereby learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 42,13,513/- with interest @ 6% on account of death of Yashwant Tiwari. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 20.5.2020, Yashwant Tiwari was returning from District Hospital, Mahasamund to his home on motorcycle. At about 21:00 hrs when he reached near Kharora Lake, offending vehicle – TATA INDIGO car bearing registration No. CG-04-HJ-2216 being driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle. In the accident, Yashwant Tiwari sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Claimants, who are the widow, children and mother of deceased moved claim application claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,39,680/-. They pleaded that the deceased was a 48 years old government servant working on the post of Ward Boy in District Hospital, Mahasamund earning Rs. 28,082/-. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter award impugned was passed. 3 3) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Tribunal granted 25% sum of the established income towards future prospects whereas the deceased being a salaried person qualifies the claimants for a 30% addition to the established income for future prospects looking to his age as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi1. He fairly submits that learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased on the basis of pay-slip and granted appropriate compensation under conventional heads. He prays to modify the award accordingly. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose. He submits 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) In the present case there is no dispute with regard to Tribunal’s assessment of income of deceased and compensation awarded under conventional heads. The core controversy, however, lies in Tribunal’s assessment of future prospects. In the context of the Pranay Sethi (supra), the 30% addition for the 40–50 age group is a mandatory legal increment applied to the "established 1. (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 income" of a deceased person who held a permanent, salaried job. Admittedly, age of deceased was 48 years and he was a government servant, therefore granting only 25% for a salaried person in this age group is a patent error of law. Therefore, claimants would be entitled to receive 30% of established income towards future prospect as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), instead of 25% as awarded by Tribunal. 7) Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is re- computing the compensation as below: Sr. No . Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Monthly Income of Deceased Rs. 28,082/- Rs. 28,082/- 2. Monthly Income aftfer adding Future Prosect Rs. 35,102/- (@25%) Rs. 36,506/- (@30%) 3. Annual Income Rs. 4,21,230/- Rs. 4,38,072/- 4. Annual Income after deduction of income tax Rs. 4,12,668/- (@5%) Rs. 4,16,169/- (@5%) 5. Annual Income after deduction towards personal and living expenses Rs. 3,09,501/- (@1/4) Rs. 3,12,127/- (@1/4) 6. Annual Income after applying multiplier Rs. 40,23,513/- (@13) Rs. 40,57,651/- (@13) 5 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,60,000/- (widow, children and mother) Rs. 1,60,000/- (widow, children and mother) 8. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 9. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- TOTAL Rs. 42,13,513/- Rs. 42,47,651/- 8) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs. 42,13,513/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 42,47,651/-. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 34,138/-. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of additional compensation assessed herein-above within period of 60 days. Rest of the terms of the award shall remain intact. 9) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a