1 CGHC010269512019 2026:CGHC:37798 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1704 of 2019 1 - Smt. Shubhmitra Krishnan W/o Late E. K. Vinayak Aged About 24 Years R/o Master Colony, Mathalput, Damanjodi, Post Mathalput, P. S. Damanjodi, District Ko- raput Odisha..........Claimants, 2 - Unni Krishnan S/o K. K. Krishnan Aged About 55 Years R/o Master Colony, Mathalput, Damanjodi, Post Mathalput, P. S. Damanjodi, District Koraput Odisha..........Claimants, 3 - Smt. Kanchan Krishnan W/o Unni Krishnan Aged About 50 Years R/o Master Colony, Mathalput, Damanjodi, Post Mathalput, P. S. Damanjodi, District Koraput Odisha..........Claimants, --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Shailendra Tara S/o Surendra Tara Aged About 25 Years Occupation Driver, D/o Santoshi Ward, Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh............ Driver, 2 - Vikrant Verma S/o Ravindra Verma R/o Balaji Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh........... Owner, 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manage, Hotel Lax- man Avenue, Infront Of Murti Line, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh......... --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1371 of 2019 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager Hotel Laxman Avenue, Infornt Of Murty Line Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Shubhmitra Krishnan W/o Late E.K. Vinayak Aged About 24 Years R/o Mas- ter Colony, Mthalput, Damanjodi, Post- Mathalput, Thana- Damanjodi, District- Kora- put ( Orissa), District : Koraput, Orissa 2 - Unni Krishnan S/o K.K. Krishnan Aged About 55 Years R/o Master Colony, Mthalpur, Damanjodi, Post- Mathalput, Damanjodi, Post- Mathalput, Thana- Daman- jodi, District- Koraput, ( Orissa), District : Koraput, Orissa Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.08.25 16:44:50 +0530 2 3 - Smt. Kanchan Krishnan W/o Unni Krishnan Aged About 50 Years R/o Mastar Colony, Mthalput, Damanjodi, Post - Mathalput, Thana - Damanjodi, District Koraput (Orissa)., District : Koraput, Orissa 4 - Shailendra Tara S/o Surendra Tara Aged About 25 Years Occupation-Driver, R/o Santoshi Ward, Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bas- tar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Vikrant Verma S/o Ravindra Verma Bajali Ward, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant-Claimants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar , Advocate For Appellant-Insurance Company : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 in MAC No. 1371/2019 : Mr. Yash Tripathi, on behalf of Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 24.08.2026 1. Since both these appeals are arising out of common impugned order, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being dis- posed by this common judgment. 2. The claimants as well as the insurance company both have preferred these two appeals under Section under Section 173 of the Motor Vehi- cles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) against the impugned award dated 28.02.2019 in Claim Case No. 153/2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar Place Jagdalpur (for brevity “MACT”). Claimants in their appeal i.e. MAC No. 1704/2019 are seeking en- hancement of award and whereas the insurance company in its appeal i.e. MAC No. 1371/2019 is seeking reduction in the amount of award granted by the MACT. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimants submits that the Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.26,800/- after deducting the mobile allowance of Rs.700/-, internet allowance of Rs.500/- and travelling allowance of Rs.3,200/-. It is sub- mitted that the aforesaid allowances, totaling Rs.4,400/-, ought to have been included while computing the income of the deceased. Thus, the monthly income ought to have been assessed at Rs.31,200/- (Rs.26,800/- + Rs.4,400/-), in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble 3 Supreme Court in the matter of Meenakshi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.1 He would further submit that the compensation awarded under the other conventional heads is also liable to be enhanced in accor- dance with law. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the claimants de- serves to be allowed and the compensation amount deserves to be en- hanced suitably. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding 50% towards future prospects, whereas, in the facts of the present case, the addition towards future prospects ought to have been 40%, as the deceased was not a perma- nent employee. It is further submitted that the project allowance ought to have been deducted while computing the income of the deceased for the purpose of determination of compensation. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be suitably modified by making the aforesaid deductions, and the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company deserves to be allowed to that extent. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival sub- missions made herein above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. So far as the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is con- cerned, the contention of the Insurance Company that, since the de- ceased was not a permanent employee, he was not entitled to future prospects to the extent of 50%, cannot be accepted. No evidence has been brought on record by the Insurance Company in support of its contention regarding the grant of 50% towards future prospects. Though Y. Bhargava Ram (AW-4), an officer of Sainoklsi Technologies Pvt. Ltd., has been examined, no question was put to him in cross-ex- amination to assail that the deceased was not a permanent employee and, therefore, was not entitled to future prospects to the extent of 50%. 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1872 4 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi2 has held that, where the deceased was in permanent employment and below the age of 40 years, an addition of 50% to- wards future prospects is to be made. In the present case, in the ab- sence of any evidence produced by the Insurance Company to estab- lish that the deceased was not in permanent employment or was not entitled to increments, the Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded 50% to- wards future prospects. Accordingly, the contention raised by the Insur- ance Company seeking reduction of future prospects from 50% is liable to be rejected, and the finding of the Claims Tribunal awarding 50% to- wards future prospects does not call for any interference. 8. So far as the appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants is con- cerned, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased was working as a Mechanical Engineer with Sainoklsi Tech- nologies Pvt. Ltd., at NMDC, Nagarnar. The deceased died on 18.12.2017. The claimants had claimed his monthly income at Rs.35,000/-. However, the Claims Tribunal, while assessing the in- come, deducted Rs.3,200/- towards travelling allowance, Rs.700/- to- wards mobile allowance and Rs.500/- towards internet allowance and assessed the monthly income at Rs.26,800/-. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Meenakshi (supra), particu- larly in paragraph 9, that allowances such as transport allowance and special allowance ought to be added while considering the income of the deceased. For ready reference, paragraph 9 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: Recently in a judgment dated 11th July, 2024 in Na- tional Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nalini and Ors. [Peti- tion for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 4230/2019], this Court held that, allowances under the heads of transport allowance, house rent allowance, provident fund loan, provident fund and special allowance ought to be added while considering the basic salary 2 (2017)16 SCC 680 5 of the victim/deceased to arrive at the dependency factor. 10.In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the travelling allowance of Rs.3,200/-, mobile allowance of Rs.500/- and internet allowance of Rs.700/- ought not to have been deducted from the income of the de- ceased. Consequently, the monthly income of the deceased deserves to be reassessed at Rs.31,200/- (Rs.26,800/- + Rs.4,400/-). Accord- ingly, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be enhanced. Further, the Claims Tribunal has awarded lesser compensa- tion under the other conventional heads. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the compensation by granting the amounts to which the claimants are legally entitled under those heads. 11.Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi3, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors4 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors.5, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income 26800/- 31200/- 2. Yearly Income 26800x12 =321600-3580 (In- come Tax 5%) 3,18,020/- 31200x12= 374400-6220 (In- come Tax 5%) = 368180 3. Future Prospect (+)50% 159010/- ; Total Rs. 477030/- (+)50% 184090/-; Total 5,52,270/- 4. Deduction (-)1/3 i.e. 159010/- = 318020/- (-)1/3 i.e. 184090/- = 3,68,180/- 5. Multiplier (x) 17 (x) 17 6. Annual Income 318020 x 17= 5406340/- 3,68,180 x 17 = 62,59,060/- 7. Loss of Estate 15,000/- 18,000/- 8. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 18,000/- 3(2017) 16 SCC 680 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5(2018) 18 SCC 130 6 9. Loss of Spousal Consortium to ap- pellant No. 1 40000 48,000 10 Parental Consor- tium to appellant No. 2 & 3 25000x2= 50000 48000x2=96000 Total 55,26,340/- 64,39,060/- 12.In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 55,26,340/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 64,39,060/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 55,26,340/-, the appellant/claimants is held to be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 912720/-. The concerned appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall re- main intact. 13.Accordingly, the appeal of the appellants/claimants i.e. MAC No.1704/2019 is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. The appeal of the Insurance company i.e. MAC No.1371/2019 is dismissed finding no merits. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Jyoti