1 CGHC010347712025 2026:CGHC:35632 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1803 of 2025 1 - Smt. Kaushilya Shyam Wd/o Late Shri Anand Singh Shyam Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Manjapara Makhanpur, P.O. And Tahsil - Pali, District- Korba C.G., Present Address- Back of Tifra Kali Mandir, P.S. Sirgitt, Distt.- Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Akash Kumar S/o Late Shri Anand Singh Shyam Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Manjapara Makhanpur, P.O. And Tahsil - Pali, District- Korba C.G., Present Address- Back Of Tifra Kali Mandir, P.S. Sirgitt, Distt.- Bilaspur C.G. 3 - Vikas Kumar S/o Late Shri Anand Singh Shyam Aged About 17 Years Minor Represented Through Mother- Smt. Kausilya Shyam, R/o Village- Manjapara Makhanpur, P.O. And Tahsil - Pali, District- Korba C.G., Present Address- Back Of Tifra Kali Mandir, P.S. Sirgitt, Distt.- Bilaspur C.G. 4 - Vivek Kumar S/o Late Shri Anand Singh Shyam Aged About 15 Years Minor Represented Through Mother- Smt. Kausilya Shyam, R/o Village- Manjapara Makhanpur, P.O. And Tahsil - Pali, District- Korba C.G., Present Address- Back Of Tifra Kali Mandir, P.S. Sirgitt, Distt.- Bilaspur C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ashish Verma S/o Mahendra Kumar Verma Aged About 25 Years R/o Main Road Kerajhariya, Post- Pali, P.S. And Tahsil- Pali, Dist.- Korba C.G. (Driver Of Tavera Vehicle No. C.G. 12 A.R. 4028) Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.08.18 11:12:58 +0530 2 2 - Ganesh Diksena S/o Kaushik Prasad Diksena R/o Tahsil-Bhata Katghora, Post And Tahsil- Katghora, Dist.- Korba C.G. (Owner Of Tavera Vehicle No. C.G. 12 A.R. 4028) 3 - Royal Sundram General Insurance Company Ltd., Corporate Office- Vishranti Melaram Towers, No. 2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (O.M.R.) Karapakkam Chennai- 600097 (Insurer Of Tavera Vehicle No. C.G. 12 A.R. 4028) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (12.08.2026) 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. It is a claimants’ appeal for enhancement. Upon due consideration, I.A. No. 01/2025 is allowed and the delay of 72 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Also heard on admission. 4. Admit. 5. With the consent of the parties, the matter was heard finally. 6. 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 24.02.2025, passed in Claim Case No.1208/2022, whereby the 3 learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.51,01,050/- as compensation for the death of Late Anand Singh Shyam, who died in a road accident which took place on 15.04.2022. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding inadequate compensation to the claimants and has failed to properly appreciate the income of the deceased, which was Rs.34,019/- per month, which is evident from salary slips (Ex.P-11 to P-13) while he was serving as an Assistant Teacher (LB). He further submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the future prospects at 25%, whereas the deceased was aged about 47 years at the time of accident and was in permanent employment. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Others , (2017) 16 SCC 680, future prospects ought to have been assessed at 30%. It is also submitted that the compensation awarded under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses and medical expenses is inadequate. Relying upon Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another , (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Pranay Sethi (supra), learned counsel submits that the compensation deserves to be suitably enhanced and the impugned award be modified accordingly. 8. Mr. Anupam Dubey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company supporting the impugned award submits 4 that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation, which needs no interference by this Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that deceased Anand Singh Shyam was working as an Assistant Teacher (LB) in the Education Department at the time of the accident and was drawing gross salary of Rs.34,019/- per month. The said income is duly established from the salary slips (Ex. P-11 to P-13). The learned Tribunal, however, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased, deducted an amount of Rs.600/- towards other allowances and Rs.100/- towards Tribal Allowance (total Rs.700/-) and accordingly assessed his monthly income at Rs.33,319/-. The said approach of the learned Tribunal is not justified. The allowances forming part of the salary payable to the deceased cannot be deducted from his gross salary while determining his income for the purpose of computation of compensation, particularly when there is no material on record to establish that such allowances were not part of his regular salary. Therefore, in view of the salary slips (Ex. P-11 to P-13), the monthly income of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs.34,019/-, being his gross salary at the relevant time. Accordingly, the finding of the learned Tribunal assessing the monthly income at Rs.33,319/- is set aside and the monthly income of the deceased is held to be 5 Rs.34,019/- for the purpose of computation of compensation. 11. It is further evident that the deceased was aged about 47 years at the time of the accident and was in permanent employment. The learned Tribunal has assessed the future prospects at 25%. However, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), an addition of 30% towards future prospects is applicable in the case of a deceased having a permanent job and falling within the relevant age bracket. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in restricting the addition towards future prospects to 25%. It is not in dispute that the deceased left behind four (4) dependents. Therefore, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appropriate deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased would be 1/4th of his income. The learned Tribunal has correctly applied the deduction of 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, and the said finding calls for no interference. Further, considering the age of the deceased as 47 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable for computation of loss of dependency is 13. The learned Tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier of 13, and the said finding is also affirmed. So far as the amount awarded under the conventional heads is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,28,000/-. The said amount is found to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and does not warrant any further 6 enhancement. Accordingly, the findings of the learned Tribunal with regard to deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, application of multiplier of 13, and award of Rs.2,28,000/- under the conventional heads are affirmed. However, the impugned award requires suitable modification to the extent indicated hereinabove, particularly in respect of the monthly income of the deceased and addition towards future prospects. 12. Thus, taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs.34,019/- i.e. Rs. 4,08,228/- per annum. The deceased was salaried person so considering the age of the deceased i.e. 47 years, as per Pranay Sethi (supra), the future prospects would be 30%. After adding 30% future prospects i.e. Rs. 1,22,468/- the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 5,30,696/-. 13. From the annual income of the deceased, there will be statutory deduction towards income tax. The income tax slab for the financial year 2022-2023 (Assessment Year 2023-24) was as follows: Income Tax Slabs in the FY 2022-23 (Assessment Year 2023-24) Income Tax Rates Taxable Income Total Tax Upto 2.5 lakh Nil Rs. 2,50,000/- Nil 2,50,001 to 5,00,000/- 5% Rs. 2,50,000/- Rs. 12,500/- 7 5,00,001 to 10,00,000 20% Rs.30,696/- Rs.6,139/- Total Tax Rs. 18,639/- 14. In view of the same, after deduction of income tax, the annual income comes to Rs.5,12,057/- (5,30,696-18,639). 15. 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 the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income Rs. 33,319 x 12 = 3,99,828/- Rs. 34,019 x 12 = 4,08,228/- 2. Future prospect (+)25% (i.e. Rs.99,957/-) = Rs.4,99,785/- (+)30% (i.e. Rs. 1,22,468.40/-) = 5,30,696.40/- Tax deduction Nill Rs. 5,30,696.40 – Tax 18,639 = 5,12,057.40/- 3. Deduction towards personal expenses (-) 1/4 (i.e.1,24,946.25) = Rs.3,74,839.75 /- (-) 1/4 (i.e. 1,28,014.35/-) = 3,84,043.05/- 4. Multiplier (x) 13 = 48,72,916.75/- (x) 13 = 49,92,559.65/- 5 Other conventional heads Rs. 2,28,000/- Rs. 2,28,000/- [18000+18000+(48000x 4)] 1(2009) 6 SCC 121 2(2018) 18 SCC 130 8 Total Rs. 51,00,916.75/- (The Tribunal has rounded off this amount to Rs.51,01,050/-) Rs. 52,20,559.65/- (Rounded off Rs.52,20,560/-) 16. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.51,01,050/-/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.52,20,560/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.51,01,050/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,19,510/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal before this Court till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 17. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 18. 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 pekde