1 CGHC010396952023 2026:CGHC:37483 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2018 of 2023 1 - Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Having Office At Station Road, Infront Of Gurudwara, Paras Complex, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh,..(Non-Applicant No. 3)(Insurer) ... Appellant versus 1 - Yogendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Jageshwar Lal Sahu Aged About 37 Years Caste - Teli, Resident Of - Palari, P.S. - Gurur, Tehsil - Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh,..(Applicant No. 1)(Claimant) 2 - Ku. Isha Sahu D/o Yogendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 13 Years Since Minor Through Natural Guardian And Father Yogendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 37 Years, S/o Shri Jageshwar Lal Sahu, Caste- Teli, Resident Of - Palari, P.S. - Gurur, Tehsil - Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh,..(Applicant No. 2)(Claimant) 3 - Ku. Riya Sahu D/o Yogendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 11 Years Since Minor Through Natural Guardian And Father Yogendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 37 Years, S/o Shri Jageshwar Lal Sahu, Caste- Teli, Resident Of - Palari, P.S. - Gurur, Tehsil - Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh,..(Applicant No. 3)(Claimant) 4 - Jageshwer Lal Sahu S/o Shri Ramadhin Sahu Aged About 66 Years Caste- Teli, Resident Of - Palari, P.S. - Gurur, Tehsil - Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh,..(Applicant No.4)(Claimant) ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 5 - Smt. Kunti Bai Sahu W/o Shri Jageshwar Lal Sahu Aged About 62 Years Caste- Teli, Resident Of - Palari, P.S. - Gurur, Tehsil - Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh,..(Applicant No. 5)(Claimant) 6 - Umesh Kumar Sahu S/o Roopchand Sahu Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Dadhari, P.S. Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ,..(Non- Applicant No. 1)(Driver) 7 - Bhuvneshwer Kumar Sahu S/o Hiraman Sahu Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Bhaisbod, Tehsil - Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ,.. (Non-Applicant No. 2)(Owner) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate appeared through V.C. For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocate and Mr. Mukul Chaturvedi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 20.08.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the insurance company challenging the impugned award dated 06.07.2023, passed in Claim Case No.97 of 2019, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.60,58,144/- as compensation in favour of the claimants for the death of Late Kamini Sahu, who died in a road accident which took place on 11.01.2019. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company submits 3 that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in passing the impugned award. He further submits that, in view of the head-on collision between the vehicles, the Tribunal ought to have applied the principles of contributory negligence. It is contended that the Tribunal has erred in law in failing to consider and apply the said principles while determining the liability and quantum of compensation. He further submits that, while computing the income for determining compensation, the Tribunal ought to have deducted the applicable income tax from the annual income of the deceased, which has not been done. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is liable to be suitably modified after taking into consideration the deduction towards income tax. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased as dependants. He further contended that the deceased was aged about 32 years and was an salaried employee and the Tribunal has erred in granted 40% future prospect which should have been 50%. He, therefore, submits that the compensation amount be suitably enhanced by treating them as dependants of the deceased. 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. The first contention raised by the appellant is that the Tribunal has 4 erred in not applying the principle of contributory negligence. On perusal of the record, it appears that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. Neither the owner nor the driver of the offending vehicle was examined to establish any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It is further noted that there is no evidence adduced by the Insurance Company to establish the same. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence appears to be just and proper. This Court finds no cogent ground to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal. 6. So far as the second contention with regard to the deduction of applicable income tax from the income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has erred in not deducting the applicable tax from the assessed income. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the income tax applicable for the Financial Year 2018–2019 is required to be taken into consideration and deducted from the income of the deceased accordingly. 7. It also appears from the impugned award that the Tribunal has considered only the minor children of the deceased as dependants and has not treated the father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband of the deceased as legal representatives, observing that they have agricultural land from which they earn their livelihood. In the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal was justified in not treating the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased 5 as dependants, however, the Tribunal erred in not considering the husband of the deceased as a legal representative for compensation. Both the children are minors and are wholly dependent upon their father, who is the husband of the deceased. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the husband of the deceased is also required to be treated as a legal representative for the purpose of computation of compensation. 8. In the case at hand, deceased Kamini Sahu was working as a Teacher at the time of the accident, drawing a monthly salary of ₹33,416/-, as evidenced by the Salary Certificate (Ex.P-17), which is not in dispute. While the learned Tribunal rightly assessed the monthly income at ₹33,416/-, it erred in failing to add Future Prospects properly as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Since the deceased was a salaried employee aged 32 years, an addition of 50% towards future prospects ought to have been applied as per Pranay Sethi instead of 40%. Further, as the deceased left behind three (3) dependents, the correct deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/3th which is rightly applied. Additionally, considering the age of the deceased (32 years), the appropriate multiplier applicable is 16. Lastly, the Tribunal awarded a meager sum of ₹70,000/- under conventional heads, which deserves enhancement to ₹1,50,000/- (including Loss of Consortium for each dependent). To this extent, the impugned award requires suitable modification. 9. Thus, taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs.33,416/- i.e. 6 Rs. 4,00,992/- per annum. The deceased was salaried person so considering the age of the deceased i.e. 32 years as per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the future prospects would be 50%. After adding 50% future prospects i.e. Rs. 2,00,496/- the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,01,488/-. 10.From the annual income of the deceased, there will be statutory deduction towards income tax. The income tax slab for the financial year 2018-2019 was as follows: Income Tax Slabs in the FY 2018-19 Income Tax Rates Taxable Income Total Tax Upto 2.5 lakh NIL Rs. 2,50,000/- NIL 2,50,001 to 5 lakh 5% Rs.2,50,000/- Rs.12,500/- 5,00,001 to 10,00,000 20% Rs.1,01,488/- Rs.20,297.60/- Health and Cess 4% - Rs.1,311.90/- Total Tax Rs.34109.50/- 11. In view of the same, after deduction of income tax, the annual income comes to Rs.5,67,378.50/- (6,01,488-34109.50), the annual income is considered in round figure to Rs.5,67,378/- . 12. 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. 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 7 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.33,416 x 12 = 4,00,992/- Rs. 33,416 x 12 = 4,00,992/- 2. Future prospect (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 1,60,396) = 5,61,388/- (+)50% (i.e. Rs. 2,00,496) = 6,01,488/- Tax deduction Nil 6,01,488-34109.50 = 5,67,378/- 3. Deduction towards personal expenses (-) 1/3 (i.e. 1,87,129) = 3,74,259/- (-) 1/3 (i.e. 1,89,126) = 3,78,252/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = 59,88,144/- (x) 16 = 60,52,032/- 5 Other conventional heads Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/- [15000+15000+(40000x 3)] Total Rs. 60,58,144/- Rs. 62,02,032/- 13.The appeal of the insurance company is not found to be acceptable. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive but less amount has been awarded. The Court should give just and proper compensation as per the case. Hence, enhancing the compensation amount and retaining the remaining conditions as it is, the appeal of the insurance company is hereby dismissed. In view of the matter of Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi & Ors. vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar & Ors., reported in (2015) 4 SCC 237, the enhanced amount shall be payable by the Insurance Company/appellant to the claimants. 2 (2018) 18 SCC 130 8 14. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.60,58,144/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.62,02,032/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.60,58,144/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,43,888/-. 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. Husband of the deceased is also entitled for award of compensation in addition to their children and rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 16. 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 Saxena