1 CGHC010388462024 2026:CGHC:37470 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2187 of 2024 1. Smt. Shashi Tiwari W/o Lt. Rajesh Tiwari Aged About 48 Years At- Ci, Mandhar Colony, Village Tekari, P/s Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, C.G. (Claimants No. 01) 2. Ku. Sweety Tiwari D/o Lt. Rajesh Tiwari Aged About 21 Years At- CI, Mandhar Colony, Village Tekari, P/s Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, C.G. (Claimants No. 02) 3. Ku. Sneha Tiwari D/o Lt. Rajesh Tiwari Aged About 20 Years At- CI, Mandhar Colony, Village Tekari, P/s Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, C.G. (Claimants No. 03) 4. Ku. Pratiksha Tiwari D/o Lt. Rajesh Tiwari Aged About 9 Years Through Next Kin Mother Appellant/claimant No. 1, Smt. Shashi Tiwari, At- CI, Mandhar Colony, Village Tekari, P/s Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, C.G. (Claimants No. 04) 5. Ku. Aashu Tiwari D/o Lt. Balram Prasad Tiwari Aged About 32 Years At- CI, Mandhar Colony, Village Tekari, P/s Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, C.G. (Claimants No. 05) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Jitendra Verma S/o Chotku Verma Aged About 30 Years At- House No. 896, Kundrapara (Yogendra Nagar) Mandhar, P/s Vidhan Sabha, District Raipur, C.G. (Driver And Owner Of The Offending Vehicle CG04HL3221) (Owner And Driver) BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.08.25 11:09:59 +0530 2 2. Acko General Insurance Company Limited At - Unit No. 301, 302, Third Floor, F Wing, Corporate Park, Goregaon East, Mumbai, M.H. (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (20.08.2026) 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2024, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 3. Upon due consideration, I.A. No.01 is allowed and the delay of 8 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. 4. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the matter was heard finally. 5. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants challenging the impugned award dated 22.07.2024 passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.401/2021, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.37,67,772/- as compensation for the death of Rajesh Tiwari, who died in a road accident that took place on 27.02.2020. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants 3 submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.31,852/- on the basis of Ex.P-13. It is contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the salary documents available on record, particularly the salary slip for January, 2020 (Ex.P-43), according to which the deceased was drawing a gross salary of Rs.34,358/- per month. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has awarded only 10% towards future prospects, whereas, considering the age of the deceased and the fact that he was a salaried person, the appellants are entitled to an addition of 15% towards future prospects. It is, therefore, prayed that the compensation be suitably enhanced. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submits that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal with utmost circumspection. 9. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, along with the income certificate (Ex.P-13), Form 16 (Ex.P-14 and Ex.P- 15) has also been placed on record. Apart from the same, salary slips for August, September, October, November and December, 2019 and January and February, 2020, marked as Ex.P-48, Ex.P-47, Ex.P-46, Ex.P-45, Ex.P-44, Ex.P-43 and Ex.P-42 respectively, have also been produced. 10.The deceased died on 27.02.2020. The salary slip for February, 2020, marked as Ex.P-42, contains certain 4 arrears. Therefore, for the purpose of determining the regular monthly income of the deceased, it would be appropriate to consider the salary slip for the preceding month, i.e., January, 2020, marked as Ex.P-43. As per Ex.P-43, the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.34,358/- per month. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is reassessed at Rs.34,358/-, which comes to an annual income of Rs.4,12,296/-. 11.The deceased was a permanent employee of Jayaswal NECO Industries Ltd. since 2004 and was aged about 52 years on the date of the accident. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the deceased, being a permanent employee and falling within the age group of 51 to 60 years, was entitled to an addition of 15% towards future prospects. The Tribunal, however, has awarded only 10% towards future prospects. The same is accordingly liable to be modified. 12.The annual income of the deceased is liable to statutory deduction towards income tax. The applicable income tax slab for the Financial Year 2019–20 (Assessment Year 2020– 21) 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% 13.The annual income of the deceased including future prospects being Rs.4,74,140/-, the taxable income after the basic exemption of Rs.2,50,000/- comes to Rs.2,24,140/-. Income tax at the rate of 5% thereon works out to Rs.11207, and after adding Health and Education Cess @ 4%, i.e., 5 Rs.448, the total tax liability comes to Rs.11655. 14. Considering the date of incident, the age of the deceased and the number of dependants, this Court finds that the deduction towards personal expenses, the multiplier applied and the amount awarded under conventional heads by the Tribunal are just, proper and in accordance with law. 15. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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:- Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income 31852x12 =3,82,224 34358 x 12 =412296 2. Future prospects (+)10% (i.e.38222) = 420446 (+)15% (i.e. 61844.4) = 474140 3. Income Tax (Deduction) -- (-) 11655 4. Annual Income 420446 462485 5. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e.105111) =315335 (-)1/4(i.e. 115621) = 346864 6. Multiplier (x) 11 = 3468685 (x) 11 = 38,15,504 7. Funeral Expenses 18,000 18000 8. Loss of Estate 18,000 18000 9. spousal/ parental/filial consortium 2,40,000/- 2,40,000 10. Medical 23087 23087 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 Expenses Total Rs. 37,67,772/- Rs. 41,14,591/- 16. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the total compensation payable to the appellants/claimants is reassessed at Rs.41,14,591/- as against Rs.37,67,772/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Consequently, the appellants/claimants are held entitled to an additional amount of Rs.3,46,819/- (41,14,591 - 37,67,772). The aforesaid additional amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till its realization. The other terms and 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 indicated hereinabove. 18. The Registry is directed to communicate the appellants/claimants in writing “the enhanced/additional 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