Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Indrani Kaushik vs Gurvinder Singh on 9 July, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
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)
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/- (150×12) and HRA of Rs.9,900/- (825×12),
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.
9
16. Considering that the deceased was self-employed person in
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.
SYED
ROSHAN
20.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned
ZAMIR ALI
Digitally signed award stands modified to the extent indicated above.
by SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-
[ad_1]
Source link