Chattisgarh High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Daya Bai Maghvani on 21 August, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:37299
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 808 of 2024
1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rama Trade
Center, 2nd Floor Opposite Rajeev Plaza, Near Old Bus
Stand Bilaspur, Tehsil And District-Bilaspur (C.G.) Through-
Authorized Signatory Manager, T.P. Claim Hub At Office
Bilaspur (C.G) --------(N.A. No.3)
... Appellant
versus
1. Daya Bai Maghvani W/o Naresh Kumar Maghvani, Aged
About 45 Years R/o Ward No.7, Shashtri Chowk, Village And
Post Akaltara, P.S. Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
2. Naresh Kumar Maghvani S/o Goumal Maghvani, Aged About
49 Years R/o Ward No.7, Shashtri Chowk, Village And Post
Akaltara, P.S. Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
3. Kumari Reetu Maghvani D/o Naresh Kumar Maghvani, Aged
About 21 Years R/o Ward No.7, Shashtri Chowk, Village And
Post Akaltara, P.S. Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
4. Kumari Yashika Maghvani D/o Naresh Kumar Maghvani,
Aged About 15 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Daya
Bai Maghvani (Res1) R/o Ward No.7, Shashtri Chowk, Village
And Post Akaltara, P.S. Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.) Claimants
5. Hariom Bharti S/o Puran Goswami, Aged About 33 Years R/o
Village Kurma, P.S. Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
(Driver)(N.A.No.1)
2
6. Indermani Mineral India Pvt. Ltd. Tower, C-1, First Floor,
Aishwarya Chamber, G.E. Road, Telibandha (Wrongly
Mentioned As Telipara) Raipur, P.S. And Tehsil Raipur,
District-Raipur (Cg)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate with Mr.
Abhishek Mishra, Advocate.
For Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Judgment On Board
21/8/2025
1. This appeal is filed by appellant Insurance challenging
quantum of compensation awarded by learned 6 th Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur vide award dated
8.1.2024 in Claim Case No.150/2022 and since the accident,
involvement of offending vehicle, which is driven by non-
applicant No.1, owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured by
non-applicant No.3/appellant herein, in said accident is not
dispute, therefore, this Court is not adverting to the facts of
the case and only considering submissions of learned counsel
for respective parties on the question of quantum of
compensation.
2. Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company would
submit that learned Claims Tribunal has taken into
consideration income tax return of the year 2021-22 (Ex.P-38)
submitted by claimants in support of the plea of income of
3
deceased. This income tax return is filed on 8.9.2021 and
deceased died motor accidental death on 11.6.2021, thus it is
apparent that income tax return, Ex.P-38, is filed after the
death of the deceased. He next contended that even if
claimants suffered loss of income due to death of deceased, it
will not be loss of entire income from the business and may
be loss of business management only. There is no evidence
in record that business which is mentioned in ITR of the year
2021-22 is closed immediately after the death of deceased
and in absence of such evidence, it will be presumed that
established business is being carried by other family
members of the deceased. In support of his submission, he
places reliance upon decision of the coordinate Bench of this
Court in MAC No.192/2024 (The New India Assurance
Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Mamta Dahia and others) decided on
27.8.2024.
3. Learned counsel for claimants/respondents No.1 to 4
opposing the submissions of learned counsel for appellant,
would submit that as per pleading made in claim application,
the deceased was doing work of Salesman and earning
income. Apart from that, deceased was also doing business
of selling goods door-to-door after purchasing it from local
market i.e. common trading. Income from the business is also
shown in ITRs submitted by deceased during his lifetime in
4
the year 2019-2020 (Ex.P-34), 2020-21 (Ex.P-36), 2021-22
(Ex.P-38). Income from business has been shown to be
increased gradually, therefore, it cannot be said that income
tax returns submitted for the assessment year 2021-22
(Ex.P-38) after the death of deceased is to seek higher
compensation against the death of deceased. In support of
his contention he referred to evidence of AW-1. He next
contended that K.K. Gupta, Tax Advisor examined before the
Claims Tribunal to prove the income tax returns submitted
and exhibited.
He further submitted that the claimants have also filed
cross-appeal seeking enhancement of quantum of
compensation on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has
assessed income of deceased on lower side; deduction of
50% towards personal living expenses of deceased is wrong
in view of the fact that deceased was survived by four
dependent family members; and claimants No.3 and 4, who
are sisters of deceased, have not been granted any
compensation towards loss of consortium. Hence, he prays
for enhancement of compensation suitably.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5
supported the impugned award.
5. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the
record.
5
6. So far as submission made by learned counsel for appellant
objecting to the consideration of income tax returns submitted
with the Income Tax Department after the death of deceased
is concerned, in case of Rukhmani Jethani and others vs.
Gopal Singh and others, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC
3496, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “MACT
committed error in not taking into consideration ITR filed on
behalf of the deceased for the financial year 2004-05”. In the
afore referred case, the deceased died on 15.9.2005 whereas
income tax return was submitted after his death.
7. In Civil Appeal No.3400/2023, arising out of SLP (C)
No.5784/2019, parties being Kavita Agrawal vs. Sarbajit
Singh, decided on 4.5.2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed thus:-
“10.In that light, even if the returns were filed
subsequent to the date of death of the assessee, there
is no exaggerated returns filed in the facts and
circumstance, since it was a gradual increase in the
income from the profession which the deceased was
undertaking and such progression is required to be
accepted.”
8. In the above facts of the case, a straight jacket formula cannot
be applied that the income tax return submitted after the
death of deceased could not be taken into consideration for
the purpose of computing amount of compensation but it has
to be considered analyzing the facts of each case.
6
9. In instant case, perusal of record would show that claimants
have submitted before learned Claims Tribunal income tax
returns of the year 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22. In the
assessment year 2019-20, income from business is shown as
Rs.1,49,640/-; in assessment year 2021-22, income from
business is shown to be Rs.2,75,220/- and in assessment
year 2021-22 it is shown as Rs.3,13,650/-. Whereas, income
from salary during aforementioned assessment years is
shown to be Rs.1,03,480/-; Rs.1,56,698/- and 1,57,800/-
respectively. Thus, income from business is appearing to
have been increased gradually and therefore, even if income
tax return submitted subsequent to death of deceased i.e.
after the end of financial years on 31.3.2021, in the opinion of
this Court, learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any
error in relying upon the same and assessing income of
deceased from business as mentioned in income tax return
for the assessment year 2021-22.
10. Second submission of learned counsel for appellant is that in
the income tax return submitted for the assessment year
2021-22 (Ex.P-38) business income of deceased has been
shown to be Rs.2,75,220/-, however, there is no proof that
said business has been closed after the death of deceased,
therefore, there would be no loss of entire income from
business i.e. Rs.2,75,222/- and after the death of deceased
7
the claimants might have suffered only management loss i.e.
loss towards management of business.
11. Perusal of the record would show that father of deceased who
is examined as AW-1, who has deposed that his son was
engaged in the business of selling goods by visiting shop-to-
shop. He has not stated in specific words in his evidence that
business was the established business and after the death of
his son, the business of sale of goods has been closed totally.
In view specific evidence of AW-1, burden was upon appellant
Insurance Company to establish by admissible evidence that
business of deceased was closed after his death in which it
utterly failed. In absence of any such evidence it would be
presumed that business which is started and established by
the deceased, is continued by other family members even
after death of deceased and therefore, in the opinion of this
Court, submission of learned counsel for appellant that
claimants have not suffered entire loss of business income of
Rs.2,75,222/- and they might have suffered only management
loss, is having force.
12. Accordingly, taking into consideration entirety of the facts of
case, I find it appropriate to take 60% of the business income
i.e. Rs.3,13,650/- shown in income tax returns for the
assessment year 2021-2022 (Ex.P-38) towards loss of
management, which works out to Rs.1,88,190/-. Upon adding
8
this amount to salary of deceased i.e. Rs.1,57,800/- as
assessed by the Claims Tribunal, total income of deceased
would come to Rs.3,45,990/- (1,88,190+1,57,800). Hence, I
deem it appropriate to assess income of deceased as
Rs.3,45,990/- per annum for the purpose of computing
compensation for loss of dependency. It is ordered
accordingly.
13. Deceased was bachelor at the time of accident, hence the
Claims Tribunal was right in deducting one-half from his
income towards personal expenses. Considering that father
of claimant No.3 and 4 is alive, they cannot be considered as
dependent on the deceased and being so, the Claims
Tribunal rightly not awarded any amount as compensation for
loss of consortium, which is even in consonance with decision
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma Insurance
Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and
others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 wherein it is held that
the consortium is limited to spousal consortium, parental
consortium and filial consortium.
14. For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount
of compensation payable to the claimants/respondents No.1 to
4 herein.
15.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,45,990/-
per annum and after adding 40% towards future prospects,
9
total annual income of deceased would come to
Rs.4,84,386/-. Out of this amount, one-half is to be deducted
towards personal and living expenses of deceased and after
deducting one-half, annual dependency would come to
Rs.2,42,193/-. Applying multiplier of 18, as applied by Claims
Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be Rs.43,59,774/-.
Besides this, appellant No.1 & 2 are entitled for a sum of
Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium, as held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matters of Nanu Ram @ Chuharu
Ram (supra). In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are
entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and
Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. However, as per decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the
amount of compensation under the aforesaid heads i.e. loss
of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate is to be
increased @ 10% after every three years, therefore, the
compensation under the head of loss of consortium works out
as Rs.44000/- (10% of 40000 + 40000); loss of estate as
Rs.16,500/- (10% of 15000 + 15000) and funeral expenses as
Rs.16,5000/- (10% of 15000 + 15000). Thus, total amount of
compensation comes to Rs.44,80,474/-. The enhanced
amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from
the date of application till actual payment is made. Rest of
the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain
10
intact. Any amount disbursed to claimants/respondent No.1 to
4 pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted.
16.In the result, appeal preferred by appellant Insurance
Company is allowed in part. Cross appeal filed on behalf of
claimants-respondents No.1 to 4 is dismissed.
17.The impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated
above.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-
[ad_1]
Source link