1 CGHC010201972024 2026:CGHC:34621 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1215 of 2024 1 - Smt. Laxmana Gabel Wd/o Lt. Shankar Lal Gabel Aged About 40 Years A/a 40 Years (Present A/a 42 Years), R/o Shankar General Store, In Front Of Bango Colony, Thusekela, Telikot, Police Station And Tahsil Kharsia District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Tikesh Gabel S/o Lt. Shankar Lal Gabel Aged About 23 Years (Present A/a 25 Years), R/o Shankar General Store, In Front Of Bango Colony, Thusekela, Telikot, Police Station And Tahsil Kharsia District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Prem Prakash Gabel S/o Lt. Shankar Lal Gabel Aged About 17 Years (Present A/a 19 Years), R/o Shankar General Store, In Front Of Bango Colony, Thusekela, Telikot, Police Station And Tahsil Kharsia District Raigarh Chhattisgarh Note- The Claimant No. 3 Was Minor During Institution Of Claim, Who Has Now Turned Major. ... Appellants versus 1 - Harjindar Singh S/o Mahendra Singh Aged About 42 Years A/a 42 Years, Occupation Driver, R/o House No. 1330, Ge Road, Ward No. 10 Kumhari, Police Station Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh Pin 490042 2 - Shiv Singh S/o Shri Sundar Singh Aged About 87 Years R/o Quarter No. B/13, Subhash Block Colony, S.E.C.L. Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh Pin 495677 3 - The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office 2nd Floor, Phase 1, Lic Camps, Investment Building, Jeevan Bima Marg, Pandri Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin 492001 Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.08.07 10:17:33 +0530 2 ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate through V.C. and Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (06.08.2026) 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 29.11.201625.01.2024, passed in M.A.C. No.153/2021, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.25,12,593/- as compensation for the death of Late Shankar Lal Gabel, who died in a road accident which took place on 26.05.2021. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the deceased was a salaried employee at the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). It is contended that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased's monthly income by relying on the payment receipt (Ex. P-12) and the ITRs for the Assessment Years 2018–2019 and 2019–2020, while erroneously ignoring the latest Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2020– 2021. Consequently, the learned Tribunal failed to award a just, proper, and reasonable amount of compensation in accordance with settled legal principles. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the compensation suitably enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3/Insurance Company supported the award impugned and submitted that the award impugned is just and proper on the basis of evidence. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. In the present case, it is undisputed that the deceased, Shankar Lal Gabel, was employed as an agent with LIC and was a salaried individual. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in determining his monthly income at 24,252/- by relying on the ₹ ITRs for Assessment Years 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 (reflecting annual incomes of 2,91,028/- and 2,87,230/-, ₹ ₹ respectively). In doing so, the Tribunal completely overlooked the latest Income Tax Return (Ex. P-11) for Assessment Year 2020–2021, which definitively establishes the deceased's annual income at 4,19,660/-. ₹ 6. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Rashmirekha Tripathy & Anr. vs. Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1256, has held that where the ITRs has been filed, the latest among those ITRs requires to be taken into consideration where an employee is salaried. For ready reference, para 18 is reproduced herein as under:- “18. We find force in the submission put forth by Mr. J.R. Midha, learned Senior counsel. There must be a bifurcation made between salaried individuals and self- employed individuals when it comes to assessment of annual income. In or view, for salaried individuals, only the ITR of the previous year will be sufficient for showcasing the annual income from salary. The reason for considering only the preceding year is that the financial impact of promotions is significant and may be reflected in the ITR for only that year. A situation may also arise whereby the deceased/claimant might not have completed a year in the promoted position before the accident or might not have filed ITR for such period. In such cases the Court concerned shall take reference to the promotion letter and other corroboratory financial statements.” 7. Thus, in light of the evidence on record and the settled legal position, the annual income of the deceased ought to be taken 4 as 4,19,660/-, as established by the Income Tax Return for the ₹ Assessment Year 2020–2021 (Ex. P-11), which was submitted on 23.12.2020, prior to the accident. The deceased was salaried person so considering the age of the deceased i.e. 52 years as per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the future prospects would be 10%. After adding 10% future prospects i.e. Rs. 41,966/- the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 4,61,626/-. 8. From the annual income of the deceased, there will be statutory deduction towards income tax. The income tax slab for the financial year 2021-2022 was as follows: Income Tax Slabs in the FY 2021-22 Income Tax Rates Taxable Income Total Tax Upto 2.5 lakh nill Rs. 2,50,000/- nill 2,50,001 to 5 lakh 5% Rs. 2,11,626/- Rs. 10,581.3/- Total Tax Rs. 10,581/- 9. In view of the same, after deduction of income tax, the annual income comes to Rs.4,51,045/- (4,61,626-10,581). 10.Accordingly, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of Pranay Sethi (supra), Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors1 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors2, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No . Heads Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Annual Income Rs. 4,19,660/- 2. Future prospect (+)10% (i.e. Rs. 41,966) = 4,61,626/- Tax deduction Rs. 4,61,626-10,581 = 4,51,045 3. Deduction towards (-) 1/3 (i.e. 1,50,348) = 3,00,697/- 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 personal expenses 4. Multiplier (x) 11 = 33,07,667/- 5 Other conventional heads Rs. 1,65,000/- [16,500+16,500+(44,000x3)] Total Rs. 34,72,667/- 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.25,12,593/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.34,72,667/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.25,12,593/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.9,60,074/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 13. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in 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 resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu