1 CGHC010163722023 2026:CGHC:30728 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 804 of 2023 1 - Satish Sagar S/o Late Gopi Nath Aged About 34 Years R/o Railway Colony, Qtr No. 88/3, Ward No. 25, Gayatri Ward, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Sunnada Sona W/o Shyamu Sona Aged About 36 Years R/o Railway Colony, Qtr No. 88/3, Ward No. 25, Gayatri Ward, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Rajani Mahanand W/o Krishna Mahanand Aged About 35 Years R/o Railway Colony, Qtr No. 88/3, Ward No. 25, Gayatri Ward, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Dinesh Sagar S/o Satish Sagar Aged About 5 Years Minor - Through Father Satish Sagar S/o Late Gopinath) R/o Railway Colony, Qtr No. 88/3, Ward No. 25, Gayatri Ward, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellants versus 1 - Vibha Banchhor D/o Sharad Prakash Aged About 26 Years R/o Plot No. 36, Street No.2, Ward No. 16, Near Sahu Aata Chakki, Changorabhata, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Driver Of Car C.G.-04-HD-1120) 2 - Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited Office Address - 2 Floor, Building No. 91, Behind Khandelwal Motors, Near Treasure Iceland Mall, M.G. Road, Indore (M.P.) .... (Insurer Of Car C.G.04-HD - 1120) ... Respondent(s) BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.07.23 12:38:52 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Mansi Bande, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (20.07.2026) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 08.02.2023, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.505/2021, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.22,24,087/- as compensation (only to appellants No.1 & 2) for the death of Smt. Vimla Bai, who died in a road accident that took place on 12.11.2020. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has committed a manifest error in assessing the future prospects at 10%, whereas the appellants are entitled to an addition of 15% towards future prospects, having regard to the age of the deceased and the nature of his occupation. He further submits that the Tribunal has also committed an error in treating only two out of the four claimants as dependants. Though Appellant No. 3, Rajani Mahanand, is the married daughter of the deceased, she is entitled to compensation under the head of parental consortium. However, the Tribunal has failed to award any amount to Appellant No. 3 under the said head. It is, therefore, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be suitably enhanced. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 3 respondent No.2 – Insurance Company opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellants and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the award passed by the Tribunal is just & proper and does not require any enhancement. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. The accident occurred on 12.11.2020. On the date of the accident, the deceased was aged about 59 years and was in salaried employment. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the deceased was entitled to an addition of 15% towards future prospects. The Tribunal, however, erroneously awarded only 10% towards future prospects. 6. Upon consideration of the date of the accident, the age of the deceased, the number of dependants, and the salary particulars reflected in the pay slip, this Court is of the view that the income assessed by the Tribunal, the deduction towards personal expenses, and the multiplier adopted are just and proper. However, appellant No.3, namely Rajani Mahanand, is also entitled to compensation under the conventional heads. 7. Insofar as the grievance of the appellants regarding the Tribunal having treated only two out of the four claimants as dependants is concerned, it is not in dispute that appellant No.1 is the son of the deceased whereas appellant No.4 is the son of appellant No.1 and was admittedly not dependent upon the deceased. 8. The Tribunal, in paragraph 33 of the impugned award, has 4 recorded a categorical finding that appellants No.2 and 3 are married daughters of the deceased. However, appellant No.1, in his evidence, has specifically deposed that appellant No.2, Smt. Sunnada, had been deserted by her husband and was residing with the deceased at the relevant point of time and, thereafter, has been residing with appellant No.1. The said assertion has not been disputed or rebutted by the Insurance Company. Appellant No.1 has further deposed that appellant No.3 is married and has been residing separately with her matrimonial family. In view of the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal rightly treated appellants No.1 and 2 as dependants of the deceased while declining to treat appellants No.3 and 4 as dependants for the purpose of determination of loss of dependency. This Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the said finding warranting interference. 9. The annual income of the deceased is liable to statutory deduction towards income tax. The applicable income tax slab for the Financial Year 2020–21 (Assessment Year 2021–22) is as follows: Taxable Income Rate of Income Tax Up to Rs.2,50,000 Nil Rs.2,50,001 to Rs.5,00,000 5% 10. The annual income of the deceased including future prospects being Rs.3,70,778/-, the taxable income after the basic exemption of Rs.2,50,000/- comes to Rs.1,20,778/-. Income tax at the rate of 5% thereon works out to Rs.6,038.90, and after adding Health and Education Cess @ 4%, i.e., Rs.241.56, the total tax liability comes to Rs.6,280.46, which is rounded off to Rs.6,280/-. 11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and the judgments 5 of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, the compensation is recomputed as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation 1 Income 26868x12 =322416 2. Future prospects (+)15% (48362.4) = 370778 3. Income Tax (Deduction) (-) 6280 4. Annual Income 364498 5. Deduction (-)1/3 (i.e. 121499.33)= 242999 6. Multiplier (x) 9 = 21,86,991 7. Funeral Expenses 16,500 8 Loss of Estate 16,500 9. Parental consortium to appellants No. 1 to 3 (44,000 x 3) 1,32,000 Total Rs. 23,51,991 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.22,24,087/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to 23,51,991/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 22,24,087/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,27,904/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the filing of claim petition before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 14. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the concerned Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants reside. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai