1 CGHC010080512023 2026:CGHC:40275 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 371 of 2023 1 - The New India Assurance Company Limited Divisional Office Kechari Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through - Authorized Signatory Manager, Suit Claim Hub Office, 2nd Floor Rama Trade Center Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Aarti Tiwari Wd/o Late Shri Vinod Tiwari Aged About 53 Years R/o Khokho Para, Police Station Puranibasti, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rahul Tiwari S/o Late Shri Vinod Tiwari Aged About 29 Years R/o Khokho Para, Police Station Puranibasti, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rohit Tiwari S/o Late Shri Vinod Tiwari Aged About 27 Years R/o Khokho Para, Police Station Puranibasti, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Mahendra Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri Dilip Kumar Verma Aged About 31 Years R/o Gopiya Para, Behind Maa Danteshwari Mandir, Ward No. 64, Police Station Puranibasti, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate with Ms. Suchi Ramteke, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3 : None. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.09.16 16:26:53 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board ( 15 .0 9 .2026) 1. This appeal has been filed by the insurance company against the award dated 28.10.2022 passed by the 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.), in Claim Case No.356/2018 whereby compensation of Rs. 67,03,977/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants for the death of Late Shri Vinod Tiwari (59 years old) in an accident which took place on 13.07.2017. Furthermore, the liability for payment of compensation has been fastened upon the insurance company. 2. The First Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the vehicle in question has been falsely implicated in the present case. In support of this contention, it is pointed out that the alleged incident occurred on 13.07.2017, and the deceased underwent treatment until passing away on 22.07.2017, whereas the FIR was lodged belatedly on 31.07.2017. The learned counsel further submits that the police statement of the eyewitness, an auto-rickshaw driver named Rajesh Kumar was recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. nearly three months later, on 13.10.2017, and the offending vehicle was seized as late as 25.11.2017. Consequently, it is argued that the vehicle was subsequently planted in a case that originally involved an unknown vehicle. Second Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal committed a patent error by failing to make proper and standard income tax deductions from the income of the deceased while computing the compensation. As such, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned award may be modified accordingly. 3. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the respondent No. 4 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 5. As to the appellant's first contention regarding the false implication of the vehicle, it lacks substance. The statement of the auto-rickshaw driver, Rajesh Kumar Dubey, was duly recorded as an eyewitness; he categorically stated that the offending vehicle caused the incident, and his testimony remains unrebutted. Furthermore, he is a listed witness in the final report (Exhibit P-1) submitted by the police, and no cogent reason has been shown to disbelieve him. Furthermore, the charge-sheet filed by the police is explicitly directed against the offending vehicle. Additionally, the death summary establishes that the deceased, Vinod Kumar Tiwari, was admitted to and treated at VY Hospital, Raipur, from 14.07.2017 to 22.07.2017. Further, it is also pertinent to note that no witness or evidence was produced by the owner/driver of the alleged vehicle or by the insurance company to rebut the evidence presented by the claimants. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Geeta Dubey vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, reported in 2024 INSC 998 referring the decision of Bimla Devi & Ors. V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors., reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530, has held therein as under:- “It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.” 6. Therefore, in view of the above, finding no valid reason to discredit eyewitness Rajesh Kumar Dubey, whose court testimony is fully corroborated by the police charge-sheet, the first contention raised by the appellant stands rejected. 7. So far as the second contention with regard to the deduction of proper income tax is concerned, it is true that the tribunal has deducted only 10% towards the income tax from the total 4 income of the deceased, which ought to be deducted as per the tax slab for the said financial year, which needs to be modified. 8. As per the salary slip Ex. P-10 the income of the deceased was Rs.85,735/- per month i.e. Rs. 10,28,820/- per annum, which is not disputed. Since the deceased was a salaried person aged about 59 years, as per service book (Ex.P-9), at the time of accident, as per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the future prospects would be 15% as has rightly been held by the claims tribunal. After adding 15% towards future prospect i.e. Rs.1,54,323/-, the annual income comes to Rs.11,83,143/-. 9. From the annual income of the deceased, there will be statutory deduction towards income tax. The income tax slab for the financial year 2017-2018 was as follows: Income Tax Slabs in the FY 2017-18 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 lakh 20% Rs.5,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- Above Rs. 10 lakh 30% Rs. 1,83,143/- Rs. 54,943/- Total Rs.1,67,443/- Education Cess 3% Rs. 1,67,443/- Rs. 5,023/- Total Tax Rs. 1,72,466 10. In view of the same, after deduction of income tax, the annual income comes to Rs.10,10,677/- (11,83,143 – 1,72,466). 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 Sethi1, Sarla 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 5 Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 85,735x12 = 10,28,820/- Rs. 85,735x12 = 10,28,820/- 2. Future prospect (+)15% (i.e. 1,54,323) = 11,83,143 (+)15% (i.e. 1,54,323) = 11,83,143 3. Deduction towards income tax 11,83,143-2,50,000 (tax exemption) = 9,33,143/- 9,33,143x10%=93,3 14/- 11,83,143- 93,314 = 10,89,829/- 11,83,143-1,72,466 =10,10,677/- 4. Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. 3,63,276) = 7,26,553/- (-) 1/3 (i.e. 3,36,892) = 6,73,785/- 5. Multiplier (x) 9 = 65,38,977/- (x) 9 = 60,64,065/- 6. Other conventio nal heads Rs. 1,65,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/- [15,000+15,000+(40,00 0x3)] Total Rs. 67,03,977/- Rs. 62,14,065/- 12.Thus, the respondents No.1 to 3/claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.62,14,065/- instead of Rs.67,03,977/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 13. In the result, the appeal of the appellant/insurance company is partly allowed to the above extent. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130