Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31640 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 656 of 2019 1. Smt. Indrani Kaushik W/o Late Salikram Kaushik Aged About 44 Years 2. Ku. Punam Kaushi D/o Late Salikram Kaushik Aged About 24 Years 3. Rituraj Kaushik S/o Late Salikram Kaushik Aged About 24 Years 4. Ku. Madhuri Kaushik D/o Late Salikram Kaushik Aged About 22 Years 5. Ku. Sarita Kaushik D/o Late Salikram Kaushik Aged About 20 Years 6. Smt. Mongra Bai Kaushik W/o Late Samay Lal Kaushik Aged About 75 Years All R/o Nagar Panchayat Kura, Ward No. 6, Bazar Chowk, Post Officer And Polie Station Dharsiwa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants-claimants versus 1. Gurvinder Singh S/o Gurjeet Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o Shastri Bazar, Kadma, Jadhsedpur, District Jamshedpur Jharkhand (Driver and Registered Owner Of Vehicle Trailer Bearing Registration No. Nl01/G/5985). 2. The Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, Through The Divisional / Branch Manager, 2 Shivmohan, Bhawan, Vidhasabha Road, Pandri. Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur,chhattisgarh.(Insurer Of Vehicle Trailer Bearing Registration No. Nl 01/G/5985)
Legal Reasoning
3. Nirmaldas Manikpuri S/o Shri Domandas Manikpuri, Aged About 40 Years R/o Chandani Chowk, Sarswati Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh.(Driver Of The Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. CG07/E/ 1296), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Raipur Bus Service Pulgaon Naka, Durg, Districit Durg Chhattisgarh.(Registered Owner Of Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. CG07/E/1296). 5. The Oriental Insurance Conapany Limited Through The Division Office, Kutchery Chowk, Riapur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.(Insurer Of Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. Cg/e/1296), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr.Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Prashant Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 9/7/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 29.8.2018 in Claim Case No.45/2017 for the death of deceased Salikram Kaushik in a road traffic accident. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that appellants-claimants filed 3 an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.80,00,000/- under various heads, for death of Salikram Kaushik in a motor vehicular accident. According to claimants, who are widow, children and mother of deceased, on 7.5.2016 at about 9:20 p.m. the bus in which Salikram Kaushik was travelling, was dashed by truck-trailer bearing registration No.NL01-G-5985 (henceforth ‘offending vehicle’), which was driven by non-applicant No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, as a result Salikram sustained grievous injuries and died. Accident was reported in concerned police station. It was further pleaded that deceased was in government service, posted in the office of Block Development Education Officer Simga as Assistant Grade-III, getting salary of Rs.27,803/- per month and they were dependent on the income of deceased. 3. Non-applicant No.1 driver-cum-owner of offending vehicle, filed reply to application denying the fact that accident had taken place with his vehicle. It was further pleaded that in case non-applicant No.1 is held responsible for payment of compensation to claimants, non-applicant No.2 would be liable for payment of compensation because on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.2 and there was no violation of any condition of insurance 4 policy. 4. Non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company also filed a separate reply and took a stand that driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. Non-applicant No.3, 4 and 5 i.e. driver, owner and insurer of the bus in which deceased was travelling, also filed reply to application denying the averments made therein. 6. The Claims Tribunal upon analyzing the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, came to the conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of trailer by non-applicant No.1 which resulted in death of deceased; there was no element of contributory negligence, but the offending vehicle was plied on road in violation of condition of insurance policy. Consequently, the Claims Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded compensation of Rs.8,70,000/- and while exonerating non-applicant No.2 from its liability, directed the insurance company to first pay the amount of compensation to claimants and then to recover the same from non-applicant No.1-owner. 7. Learned counsel for claimants/appellants submits that appellants in claim application have pleaded Income of 5 deceased as Rs.27,803/- and in support thereof produced last pay certificate of deceased as Ex.P-12, however, the Claims Tribunal relying on salary certificates (Ex.P-13 to P-15) has erroneously assessed income of deceased as Rs.27,095/- per month. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in deducting income tax of Rs.22,441/- from the income of the deceased as no income tax is deductible on the income of deceased. The amount of compensation awarded under other conventional heads is also on lower side. Hence, he prays that amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 supporting the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper. Income of the deceased was considered on appreciating the salary certificates as produced by the claimants in their evidence. He, however, does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for appellants regarding non-grant of compensation under the head of loss of consortium to all the claimants. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused record of claim case including impugned award. 10. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, in order to prove the income of deceased, the claimants have produced 6 last pay certificate (Ex.P-12) and salary certificates (Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-15). Perusal of last pay certificate (Ex.P-12) would show that gross pay of deceased was Rs.27803/-, however, there is no mention in this last pay certificate as to what was net salary of the deceased after deductions. Whereas, pay slips of Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-15 reveals that gross pay of deceased in the month of February, 2016, March, 2016 and April, 2016 was Rs.27,095/-. Since there was contradiction in the last pay certificate (Ex.P-12) and pay slip (Ex.P-15), both of the month of April 2016, the Claims Tribunal was certainly justified in not relying upon last pay certificate of Ex.P-12 in order to assess gross income of the deceased. Assessment of monthly salary of deceased by the Claims Tribunal relying on the salary slips of Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-15 cannot be said to be erroneous and therefore, the same is confirmed. 11. Perusal of impugned award would show that after determination of gross salary of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal has added 30% future prospects to established income of deceased and thus considered total income of deceased as Rs.35,223/- per month. Thereafter, the Claims Tribunal having regard to the income tax slab prescribed for the financial year 2016-17 by the Income Tax Department, deducted 10% of taxable income i.e. Rs.1,72,676/- towards income tax, and 3% towards education cess i.e. Rs.5,180=28 7 paise, and accordingly, considered net annual income of the deceased as Rs.4,00,235/- for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency. However, in the opinion of this Court, the method adopted by the Claims Tribunal to compute income tax payable on the annual income of deceased was not correct and the same requires to be recomputed. 12. Firstly, as per provisions of Section 16 (ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1962, there shall be standard deduction of Rs.50,000/- from the “salary” of deceased. The benefits under Section 80C of the Act of 1962, for which ceiling is of Rs.1,50,000/- per financial year, would also be available to the deceased. As per the tax regime applicable in the financial year 2015-16, the taxpayer was entitled to the benefit of deduction from the gross income under the head of ‘House Rent Allowance’. 13. Deceased died in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 7.5.2016 and at the time of his accidental death, he was presumed to be earning income of Rs.35,223/-, as held by the Claims Tribunal, and thus annual income comes to Rs.4,22,676/-. Salary certificates (Ex.P-13 to P-15) of the deceased reflects that deceased was getting deducted an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.60,000/- per annum) towards General Provident Fund; an amount of Rs.150/- (Rs.1800/- per annum) was being deducted towards GIS and an amount of Rs.825/- (Rs.9900/- per annum) paid towards house rent 8 allowance. Hence, while calculating the annual income on which the deceased was required to pay income tax, aforementioned amount will have to be deducted from the gross income of the deceased. 14. After making aforementioned deductions i.e. standard deduction of Rs.50,000/-, GPF of Rs.60,000/- (5000 x 12), GIS of Rs.1,800/- (150x12) and HRA of Rs.9,900/- (825x12), from the annual income of deceased, the net taxable income of deceased comes to Rs.3,00,976/- (4,22,676-50,000- 60,000-1,800-9,900). 15. As per slab for the assessment year 2015-16, income upto Rs.2,50,000/- was exempted from payment of income tax. Thereafter, 10% income tax was payable on income of Rs.2,50,001/- to 5,00,000/-. Thus, out of net annual income of deceased of Rs.3,00,976/-, no income tax is payable on first Rs.2,50,000/- and 10% tax is payable on remaining income i.e. Rs.50,976/- (3,00,976 – 2,50,000), which comes to Rs.5,098/-. On this amount, 3% education cess is to be added, which comes to Rs.153/-. Thus net income tax which was payable on the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.5,251/- (5098+153). Accordingly, it is ordered that income tax deductible from the annual income of deceased would be Rs.5,251/- and not Rs.22,441=28 paise, as computed by the Claims Tribunal. 16. Considering that the deceased was self-employed person in 9 the age group of 40-50 years and he was survived by six family members, addition of 30% future prospects to the assessed income of deceased; deduction of one-fourth towards personal expenses of deceased and multiplier of 13 applied by the Claims Tribunal to assess the loss of dependency as well as award of Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, is in consonance with the law in this regard and the same need no interference. 17. Perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation towards loss of consortium to appellant No.1-widow only and not awarded any compensation for loss of consortium to appellants No.2 to 6, who are children and mother of the deceased. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the widow, children and parents of victim who died in a road accident are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium. Thus, appellants No.2 to 6 being children and mother of the deceased shall be entitle for parental consortium and filial consortium in the sum of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. 10 18.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. 19.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.27,095/- per month, as assessed by the Claims Tribunal, and annual income would be Rs.3,25,140/-. After adding 30% towards loss of future prospects, total income of deceased would be Rs.4,22,682/-. After deducting income tax of Rs.5,098/-, as computed above, net income of deceased would be Rs.4,17,584/-. Out of this amount, one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased, as deducted by the Claims Tribunal, and after deducting one- fourth, loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,13,188/-. Applying multiplier of 13, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be Rs.40,71,444/-. Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellant No.2 to 5 are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium and appellant No.6, mother of deceased, is entitled for Rs.40,000/- for loss of filial consortium. In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of compensation for which now appellants-claimants are entitled, comes to Rs.43,41,444/- This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. 11 from the date of application till actual payment is made. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount disbursed to appellants pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above.
Decision
20.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI roshan/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge