1 CGHC010035632018 2026:CGHC:35736 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 309 of 2018 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.2), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Manju Bhagat Wd/o Vishwanath Bhagat, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Khajanchitoli, Behind Jail Road, Jashpurnagar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajkamal S/o Late Vishwanath Bhagat, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Khajanchitoli, Behind Jail Road, Jashpurnagar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Roopanjali D/o Late Vishwanath Bhagat, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Khajanchitoli, Behind Jail Road, Jashpurnagar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Jagjeevan Prasad Yadav S/o Late Lurka Prasad Yadav, Aged About 26 Years, Occupation Naukri (Sahayak Arakshak) Police Station Aasta, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithwa, Dy.G.A. with Dr. Smt. Richa Pandey, P.L. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.08.14 10:21:12 +0530 2 (12.08.2026) 1. The appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1988”), has been preferred by the Appellant-State, challenging the impugned award dated 24.07.2017 passed in M.A.C. No. 43/2016, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 67,22,650/- in favour of the claimants as compensation for the death of Vishwanath Bhagat, who died in a road accident that took place on 26.07.2016, and fastened the liability upon the Appellant- State to pay the said compensation. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the learned Tribunal erred in law in adding 30% towards future prospects to the income of the deceased (aged about 52 years), whereas, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the addition towards future prospects ought to have been 15%. He next submits that the amount of compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also on the higher side and is not in consonance with the settled principles of law. She, therefore, prayed that the impugned award be modified by suitably recomputing and reducing the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and supports the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 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 case at hand, deceased Vishwanath Bhagat was working as an Assistant Manager in a Regional Rural Bank at the time of the accident, drawing a monthly salary of 71,130/-, as ₹ evidenced by the Salary Payslip (Ex. P-1), which is not in 3 dispute. Since the deceased was a salaried employee aged 52 years, an addition of 15% towards future prospects ought to have been made, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, instead of 30%. Further, as the deceased left behind three (3) dependents, the deduction towards personal and living expenses ought to be one-third (1/3) of his income, which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, considering the age of the deceased, i.e., 52 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for computation of loss of dependency is 11 and not 10. Lastly, the learned Tribunal awarded a meagre sum of 1,45,000/- under the ₹ conventional heads, which deserves to be enhanced to 1,50,000/-, including the amount payable towards loss of ₹ consortium to each eligible dependent, in accordance with law. Accordingly, to this extent, the impugned award requires suitable modification. 6. Thus, taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 71,130/- i.e. Rs. 8,53,560/- per annum. 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 15%. After adding 15% future prospects i.e. Rs. 1,28,034/- the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 9,81,594/-. 7. From the annual income of the deceased, there will be statutory deduction towards income tax. The income tax slab for the financial year 2016-2017 was as follows: Income Tax Slabs in the FY 2014-15 Income Tax Rates Taxable Income Total Tax Upto 2.5 lakh nill Rs. 2,50,000/- nill 2,50,001 to 5 lakh 10% Rs. 2,50,000/- Rs. 25,000/- 5,00,001 to 10,00,000 lakh 20% Rs.4,81,594/- Rs.96,319 Total Tax Rs. 1,21,319/- 4 8. In view of the same, after deduction of income tax, the annual income comes to Rs.8,60,275/- (9,81,594-1,21,319). 9. 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. 71,130 x 12 = 8,53,560/- Rs. 71,130 x 12 = 8,53,560/- 2. Tax deduction Rs.8,53,560- 94,600=7,58,960 __ 3. Future prospect 30% i.e.,2,27,688 =9,86,648 15% i.e., 1,28,034=9,81,594 4. Tax deduction __ 9,81,594-1,21,319= 8,60,275/- 5. Deduction towards personal expenses (-) 1/3 (i.e.3,28,883) = 6,57,765/- (-) 1/3 (i.e.2,86,758) = 5,73,517/- 6. Multiplier (x) 10 = 65,77,650/- (x) 11 = 63,08,687/- 7. Other conventional heads Rs. 1,45,000/- Rs.1,50,000/- (15,000+15,000+1,20,0 00) Total Rs. 67,22,650/- Rs. 64,58,687/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.67,22,650/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reduced to Rs.64,58,687/-. The claimants shall be entitled for the actual amount of Rs. 64,58,687/- and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 12. 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 $ourabh