1 CGHC010047892025 2026:CGHC:41545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 301 of 2025 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Office No. 516, 5th Floor, National Corporate Park, Commercial Complex G.E. Road, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Through Its Legal Officer, Correct And Present Address - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 301-302, Corporate House, 169 RNT Marg, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore (M.P.) (Insurer) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Payal Manikpuri W/o Late Prakash Das Manikpuri Aged About 27 Years R/o - Mauhari Bhatha, Near Bandhwa Talab, Ward No. 13, Mahasamund, P.S., Tahsil And District - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Claimants) 2 - Kumar Das Manikpuri S/o Late Premdas Manikpuri Aged About 58 Years R/o - Mauhari Bhatha, Near Bandhwa Talab, Ward No. 13, Mahasamund, P.S., Tahsil And District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Amrika Manikpuri W/o Kumar Das Manikpuri Aged About 56 Years R/o - Mauhari Bhatha, Near Bandhwa Talab, Ward No. 13, Mahasamund, P.S., Tahsil And District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Jasraj Sahu S/o Shantadas Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Imlibhatha, Near Parmeshwari Tample, BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.09.26 12:44:36 +0530 2 Mahasamund, P.S., Tahsil And District - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver Of Vehicle Bearing No. CG-06 GT-9310) 5 - Santu Dheewar S/o Raju Dheewar Aged About 28 Years R/o- Ward No. 14, Mahasamund, P.S., Tahsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Owner Of Vehicle Bearing No. Cg-06 GT- 9310) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 24 / 09 / 2026 1. Heard on I.A. No.02/2025, for condonation of delay in filing the cross-objection. 2. The cross-objection has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 3. Upon due consideration, I.A. No.02/2025 is allowed and the delay of 14 days in filing the cross-objection is hereby condoned. 4. The cross-objection is admitted for hearing. 5. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company as well as the claimants, the matter is heard finally. 6. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company challenging the award dated 20.11.2024 passed 3 by the 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), in Claim Case No. H- 214/2023, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.72,38,296/- on account of the death of Prakash Das Manikpuri, who succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.08.2023. 7. The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company and the cross-objection filed by the claimants relate to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant–Insurance Company submits that the Claims Tribunal has erred in calculating the income tax on the annual income of the deceased before adding the amount towards future prospects. It is submitted that the income tax ought to have been calculated on the annual income after addition of the amount towards future prospects. He, therefore, prays that the impugned award be modified accordingly. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 opposes the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant–Insurance Company and submits that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the conventional heads is inadequate and deserves to be suitably enhanced in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. It is not in dispute that the deceased, Prakash Das Manikpuri, was working as a Patwari at Village Sonakhan, Sub-Divisional Office, Kasdol, District Balodabazar. As per Ex.P-27, his monthly salary was Rs.38,165/-. Accordingly, his annual income comes to Rs.4,57,980/-. The Claims 4 Tribunal has calculated the income tax on the said annual income. However, the income tax is required to be assessed on the annual income after addition of future prospects. Accordingly, the income tax is required to be recalculated. 11. Upon addition of 50% towards future prospects, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,86,970/-. Accordingly, the income tax is recalculated as under: Income Income Tax Rate Tax Calculation Tax Upto 2,50,000 Nil — Nil 2,50,001- to 5,00,000 5% 2,50,000 × 5% 12,500 5,00,001 to 6,86,970 20% 1,86,970 × 20% 37,394 Total 49,894 Health & Education Cess 4% 49,894 × 4% = 1,995.76 1,996 Total Tax 51,890 12. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 32 years. There are three claimants i.e. the wife and parents of the deceased. 13. Considering the date of the accident, the age of the deceased and the number of dependants, this Court finds that the addition towards future prospects, deduction towards personal expenses and the multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal are just, proper and in accordance with law. However, the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the conventional heads requires suitable enhancement in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance 5 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:- S. No. Heads Calculation 1. Income 38,165 × 12 = 4,57,980 2. Future Prospects (+) 50% i.e. 2,28,990 = 6,86,970 3. Income Tax (Deduction) (−) 51,890 4. Annual Income 6,35,080 5. Deduction towards Personal Expenses (−) 1/3 (2,11,693.33)= 4,23,386.67 6. Multiplier × 16 = 67,74,186.72 7. Funeral Expenses 18,000 8. Loss of Estate 18,000 9. Spousal/Parental/Filial Consortium 48,000 × 3 = 1,44,000 Total 69,54,186.72 ₹ in round figure 69,54,187 ₹ 15. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the claimants shall now be entitled to a total compensation of ₹69,54,187/- in place of Rs.72,38,296/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The interim order of stay granted by this Court vide order dated 10.06.2025 stands vacated. The remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain unaltered. 16. In the result, the appeal of the Insurance company stands allowed and the cross-objection filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 stands disposed of with the aforesaid modification. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130