1 CGHC010022272023 2026:CGHC:37214 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 117 of 2023 1 - Sunita Jaiswal W/o Late Ramgopal Jaiswal Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 6, East Nepal Gate, Shivpur, Charcha, Rupnagar, Police Station Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.)............Claimant 2 - Yogesh @ Kanhaiya Jaiswal S/o Late Ramgopal Jaiswal Aged About 18 Years R/o Ward No. 6, East Nepal Gate, Shivpur, Charcha, Rupnagar, Police Station Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.)............Claimant. 3 - Khushboo Jaiswal D/o Late Ramgopal Jaiswal Aged About 16 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Sunita Jaiswal, R/o Ward No. 6, East Nepal Gate, Shivpur, Charcha, Rupnagar, Police Station Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.)............Claimant 4 - Aditya Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Ramgopal Jaiswal Aged About 14 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Sunita Jaiswal, R/o Ward No. 6, East Nepal Gate, Shivpur, Charcha, Rupnagar, Police Station Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.)............Claimant --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Sanjay Toppo S/o Tejilal Toppo Aged About 35 Years R/o Charcha Rupnagar, Police Station Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.).............(Owner Of Offending Vehicle) 2 2 - Ajesh Kujur S/o Moti Lal Kujur Aged About 28 Years R/o Gram Budhar, Police Station Patna, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.).................(Driver) 3 - Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited, 1st Floor, Agrawal Chambers Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001..............(Insurance Company) --- Respondent(s) And MAC No. 137 of 2023 1 - Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited 1st Floor Agrawal Chamber, Vyapar Bihar Road, Bilaspur 495001 (Chhattisgarh) Through In-Charge, T.P.Hub, T.P.Hub Office, Vyapar Bihar Road, Above Canara Bank, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Pin 495001 ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Sunita Jaiswal W/o Late Ramgopal Jaiswal, Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 6, East Nepal Gate, Shivpur Charcha, P.S. Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea (Chhattisgarh)...........Claimant 2 - Yogesh @ Kanhaiya Jaiswal, S/o Late Shri Ram Gopal Jaiswal, Aged About 18 Years R/o Ward No. 6, East Nepal Gate, Shivpur Charcha, P.S. Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea (Chhattisgarh)...........Claimant 3 - Khushboo Jaiswal D/o Late Shri Ram Gopal Jaiswal, Aged About 16 Years, Minor And Represented Through Her Mother And Natural Guardian Respondent No. 1 Smt. Sunita Jaiswal Wd/o Late Shri Ram Gopal Jaiswal, Aged 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, East Nepal Gate, Shivpur Charcha, P.S. Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea (Chhattisgarh)...........Claimant 4 - Aditya Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Ram Gopal Jaiswal, Aged About 14 Years, Minor And Represented Through His Mother And Natural Guardian Respondent No. 1 Smt. Sunita Jaiswal Wd/o Late Shri Ram Gopal Jaiswal, Aged 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, East Nepal Gate, 3 Shivpur Charcha, P.S. Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea (Chhattisgarh)...........Claimant 5 - Sanjay Toppo, S/o Tejilal Toppo, Aged About 35 Years R/o Charcha Rupnagar, Thana Charcha Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea (Chhattisgarh).............Owner 6 - Ajesh Kujur, S/o Shri Moti Lal Kujur, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Budhar, Police Station Patna, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea (Chhattisgarh)............Driver --- Respondent(s) For Appellants in MAC No.117/2023 and for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in MAC No.137/2023 : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 in MAC No.117/2023 and for Appellant in MAC No.137/2023 : Mr. Ratan Pusty, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (19.08.2026) 1. Since the aforesaid appeals arise out of common award dated 17.11.2022, they are being heard together and decided by this common judgment. 2. MAC No.117/2023 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 17.11.2022, passed in Claim Case No.67/2021, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,64,02,000/- as compensation for the death of Late Ram 4 Gopal Jaiswal, who died in a road accident which took place on 12.08.2021. 3. MAC No.137/2023 under Section 173 of the Act, 1988 has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 17.11.2022, passed in Claim Case No.67/2021, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has fastened the liability upon Insurance Company to satisfy the award amount. 4. Mr. Anuroop Panda, learned counsel for the appellants in MAC No.117/2023 submits that the learned Claims Tribunal while rightly assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.93,376/- has erred in taking future prospect. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the future prospects at 40%, whereas the deceased was aged about 34 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 50%. As regards multiplier, learned counsel submits that according to postmortem report (Ex.P-11), the age of the deceased was 34 years, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 16. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meager amount of compensation under the conventional heads, which requires to be enhanced suitably. As regards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that 5 the charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, and the eyewitness, Jai Kumar (AW-2), has stated that Ajesh Kujur was driving the offending vehicle, which statement has not been controverted. Further, no negligence on the part of the deceased has been established. Therefore, the contention raised by the Insurance Company is not acceptable. Thus, the compensation deserves to be suitably enhanced and the impugned award be modified accordingly. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Ratan Pusty, learned counsel for the Insurance Company opposing the impugned award contended that, as per the salary slip (Ex.P-16), the gross salary of the deceased has been taken at Rs.93,796/-, which includes a bonus of Rs.11,247/- for three months, whereas only one month’s bonus ought to have been included in the monthly salary. As regards multiplier, learned counsel contended that the driving license of the deceased Ramgopal is on record as Ex.P-17C, wherein his date of birth is recorded as 09.07.1985. Accordingly, on the date of the accident, i.e., 12.08.2021, the deceased had completed 36 years of age (36 years, 01 months and 03 days), whereas the Tribunal, treating his age as 34 years, has applied a multiplier of 16, which is not proper. Thus, for the purpose of determining the applicable multiplier, the deceased would fall within the age group of 36–40 years, for which the applicable multiplier would be 15. As regards contributory negligence, learned counsel contended that the accident occurred between two scooties, one of which was 6 being driven by the deceased himself. It was a head-on collision. Sanjay Toppo (Non-Applicant No. 1), being the owner of the offending vehicle, stated that he was riding as a pillion rider behind the driver of the offending vehicle, namely Ajesh Kujur, and that the accident occurred when the deceased Ramgopal suddenly came in front of the offending vehicle. Therefore, contributory negligence on the part of the deceased ought to be held, and the impugned award fastening the liability upon the insurance company be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that deceased Ramgopal Jaiswal, was employed in S.E.C.L. as Trammer at the time of the accident and was drawing gross salary of Rs.93,796/- per month. The said income is duly established from the salary slips (Ex. P- 16). It was pointed out by Insurance Company that gross salary of the deceased Rs.93,796/- includes a bonus of Rs.11,247/- for three months, whereas only one month’s bonus ought to have been included in the monthly salary. The said contention raised on behalf of the Insurance Company appears to be justified. Since the bonus of Rs.11,247/- represents the amount payable for three months, the bonus for one month comes to Rs.3,749/-. Accordingly, after deducting the bonus pertaining to two months, i.e. Rs.7,498/-, from the gross salary of the deceased, the monthly 7 income of the deceased comes to Rs.86,298/-. Accordingly, the finding of the learned Tribunal assessing the monthly income at Rs.93,376/- is set aside and the monthly income of the deceased is held to be Rs.86,298/- for the purpose of computation of compensation. 8. It is further evident that the deceased was aged about 36 years at the time of the accident and was in permanent employment. The learned Tribunal has assessed the future prospects at 40%. However, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), an addition of 50% 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 40%. 9. 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. 10. As regards the multiplier, the driving license of deceased is on record which is an authentic document, wherein the date of birth of the deceased has been mentioned. Apart from the said document, no other document showing the different date of birth 8 of the deceased has been brought on record. Therefore, in view of the date of birth mentioned in the driving license as 09.07.1985, the deceased had completed 36 years of age as on the date of the incident. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be appropriate to apply a multiplier of 15 instead of 16. The learned Tribunal has gone wrong in applying the multiplier in the case, and the finding with regard to applying the multiplier is set aside. 11. So far as the amount awarded under the conventional heads is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/-. The said amount is not found to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and requires enhancement. 12. As regards the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, upon perusal of the record and consideration of the submissions advanced by both sides, and upon appreciating the evidence on record, it is noteworthy that Sanjay Toppo, in his capacity as the owner of the offending vehicle, has no where pleaded in his written statement that, at the time of the accident, he was travelling on the scooty along with its driver, Ajesh Kujur. In such circumstances, his presence at the spot at the time of the accident is not found to be credible and, therefore, his statement cannot be relied upon. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that Jai Kumar (AW-2), examined on behalf of the claimants as an eyewitness, has supported the claim of the claimants. A charge- 9 sheet has been filed against Ajesh Kujur, the driver of the offending vehicle, and Jai Kumar (AW-2)) has been cited as listed witness therein. Therefore, the Tribunal, having relied upon the testimony of Jai Kumar (AW-2)), has rightly recorded a finding of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. No error or infirmity is found in the said finding. Consequently, the contention of the Insurance Company that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence is not found worthy of acceptance. 13. Thus, in view of aforesaid factual backgrounds of the case, the impugned award requires suitable modification to the extent indicated here-in-above, particularly in respect of the monthly income of the deceased, addition towards future prospects and multiplier. 14. Thus, taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs.86,298/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 10,35,576/-. The deceased was salaried person so considering the age of the deceased i.e. 36 years, as per Pranay Sethi (supra), the future prospects would be 50%. After adding 50% future prospects i.e. Rs. 5,17,788/- the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 15,53,364/-. 15. From the annual income of the deceased, there will be statutory deduction towards income tax. The date of accident in the instant case is 12.08.2021, so, the income tax slab for the financial year 2021-2022 (Assessment Year 2022-23) was as follows: Income Tax Income Tax Taxable Total Tax 10 Slabs in the FY 2021-22 (Assessment Year 2022-23) Rates Income 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/- 5,00,001 to 10,00,000 20% Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Above 10,00,000 30% Rs.5,34,364/- Rs.1,66,009- Total Tax Rs. 2,78,509/- 16. In view of the same, after deduction of income tax, the annual income comes to Rs.12,74,855/- (15,53,364-2,78,509). 17. 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 Income Rs. 86,298 x 12 = 10,35,576/- 2. Future prospect (+)50% (i.e. Rs. 5,17,788) = 15,53,364/- Tax deduction Rs. 15,53,364 – Tax 2,78,509 = 12,74,855/- 1(2009) 6 SCC 121 2(2018) 18 SCC 130 11 3. Deduction towards personal expenses (-) 1/4 (i.e. 3,18,713.75/-) = 9,56,141.25/- 4. Multiplier (x) 15 = 1,43,42,118.75/- 5 Other conventional heads Rs. 2,09,000/- [16,500+16,500+(44000x4)] Total Rs. 1,45,51,118.75/- (Rounded off Rs.1,45,51,119/-) 18. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.1,64,02,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reduced to Rs.1,45,51,119/-. The claimants shall be entitled to the modified amount of compensation and rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 19. In the result, the aforesaid appeals are partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein- above. 20. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the modified 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.08.25 10:36:56 +0530