1 CGHC010364702023 2026:CGHC:41732 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1806 of 2023 1 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Present Address - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 301-302, Corporate House, RNT Marg, Indore (M.P.),... (Insurer) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Archana Pradhan W/o Late Shantakumar Pradhan Aged About 32 Years R/o Santhar, P.S. Dongaripali, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). 2 - Ku. Aditi Pradhan D/o Late Shantakumar Pradhan Aged About 1 ½ Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1, Smt. Archana Pradhan, R/o Santhar, P.S. Dongaripali, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Gurudev Pradhan S/o Vaishnav Pradhan Aged About 69 Years R/o Santhar, P.S. Dongaripali, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Banita Pradhan W/o Gurudev Pradhan Aged About 67 Years R/o Santhar, P.S. Dongaripali, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ….(Claimants) 5 - Ashish Panigrahi S/o Chaturbhuj Aged About 26 Years R/o Santhar, P.S. Dongaripali, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.),...(Driver Of Maruti Sujuki Speso Bearing No. O.D. 15-S/3845) 2 6 - Smt. Pranati Mishra W/o Ashisha Panigrahi Aged About 24 Years R/o Santhar, P.S. Dongaripali, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.),...(Owner Of Maruti Sujuki Speso Bearing No. O.D. 15-S/3845) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (25.09.2026) 1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Act, 1988 has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 10.08.2023 passed in Claims Case No.H-48/2022, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.92,73,488/- as compensation under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 to the claimants for the death of Late Shanta Kumar Pradhan, who died in a road accident which took place on 24.01.2022. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 24.01.2022, deceased, Shanta Kumar Pradhan, was travelling in a Maruti Suzuki car bearing registration No. OD-15-S/3845 along with his friends, namely, Bilas Vishal, Rajan Kond and Mohit Pradhan, to the office of the Board of Secondary Education, Raipur. At about 11:30 a.m., near village Teka on National Highway No. 53, the driver of the said vehicle drove the vehicle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the accident occurred. Due 3 to the injuries sustained by Shanta Kumar in the said accident, he succumbed to his injuries on 24.01.2022. 3. A claim petition was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants who happen to be the legal heirs (Wife, Daughter, Father and Mother) of the deceased claiming a compensation of Rs.1,22,16,750/- inter alia pleading that the deceased at the relevant time was aged about 37 years, was Govt. employee posted as Teacher in the C.G. Education Department, and drawing salary of Rs.45,795/- per month. 4. Pleading of the claimants have, however, been denied by the appellant/insurance company. 5. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the vehicle was carrying more occupants than permitted limit and was being used for hire, as such, there was breach of policy conditions. However, he is not pressing the other grounds as no independent witnesses have been examined to substantiate such allegations. The sole contention advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the deceased was a Govt. employee working as Teacher in the C.G. Education Department and, while determining the compensation, the learned Claims Tribunal has failed to make the requisite deduction towards income tax from his annual income. Therefore, the income tax liability ought to be deducted while computing the loss of dependency and the compensation amount be recalculated accordingly. 4 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 opposing the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has not awarded adequate amount under conventional heads, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, needs to be enhanced suitably. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that deceased Shanta Kumar Pradhan was Government employee posted as UDT (Teacher) at Government Higher Primary School, Pandripani, Development Block Saraipali, District Mahasamund at the time of the accident and was drawing gross salary of Rs.45,795/- per month. The said income is duly established from the evidence of Prakash Chand Manjhi (AW-4), Block Education Officer and salary slips (Ex. P-15 and P-16). Accordingly, the finding of the learned Tribunal assessing the monthly income at Rs.45,795/- is just and proper. 9. The learned claims Tribunal, considering the nature of job of deceased at the time of accident 24.01.2022, the fact that he was aged 39 years, and number of dependents (04), has rightly taken future prospect of 50%, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 15. 10. So far as the amount awarded under the conventional heads is 5 concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium to claimant No.1, Rs.10,000/- towards parental consortium to claimant No.2, Rs.10,000/- each to claimant Nos. 3 & 4 towards filial consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and no amount was awarded under the head funeral expenses, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not found to be proper and required to be enhanced suitably. 11. Thus, taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs.45,795/-, the annual income comes to Rs.5,49,540/-. The deceased was salaried person so considering the age of the deceased i.e. 39 years, as per decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the future prospects would be 50%. After adding 50% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.2,74,770/- the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.8,24,310/-. 12. From the annual income of the deceased, there will be statutory deduction towards income tax. The date of accident in the instant case is 24.01.2022, so, the income tax slab for the financial year would be 2021-2022 (Assessment Year 2022-23), which was as follows: Income Tax Slabs in the FY 2021-2022 (Assessment Year 2022-23) Income Tax Rates Taxable Income Total Tax 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/- 6 5,00,001 to 10,00,000 20% Rs.3,24,310/- Rs.64,862/- Above 10,00,000 30% -- -- Total Tax Rs.77,362/- 13. In view of the same, after deduction of income tax, the annual income comes to Rs.7,46,948/- (8,24,310 – 77,362). 14. 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. 45,795 x 12 = 5,49,540/- 2. Future prospect (+)50% (i.e. Rs.2,74,770/-)= 8,24,310/- 3. Income Tax deduction Rs. 8,24,310 – Tax 77,362= 7,46,948/- 4. Deduction towards personal expenses (-) 1/4th (i.e. 1,86,737/-)= 5,60,211/- 5. Multiplier (x) 15 = 84,03,165/- 6. Other conventional heads Rs. 2,09,000/- [16,500+16,500+(44000x4)] Total Rs. 86,12,165/- 15. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.92,73,488/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reduced to 1(2009) 6 SCC 121 2(2018) 18 SCC 130 7 Rs.86,12,165/-. The claimants shall be entitled to the modified amount of compensation and rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 16. In the result, the aforesaid appeals are partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein- above. 17. 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: 2026.09.26 15:04:06 +0530