Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Anita Netam

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:42411

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 202 of 2025

¶6

1 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Office No. 516, 5th Floor, National Corporate Park, Commercial Complex G.E. Road, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Its Legal Officer, Correct And Present Address Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 301-302, Corporate House, 169 Rnt Marg, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore Madhya Pradesh (Insurer)

¶7

--- Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Smt. Anita Netam W/o Late Rajesh Netam Aged About 45 Years

¶10

2 - Shailesh Netam S/o Late Rajesh Netam Aged About 25 Years

¶11

3 - Sahil Kumar Netam S/o Late Rajesh Netam Aged About 22 Years No.1 to 3 all are R/o Village Kuyenar, Post - Naimed Tehsil - Bijapur, District - Bijapur Chhattisgarh (Claimant)

¶12

4 - Santosh Kumar Kadeyari S/o Bawda Kadeyari Aged About 40 Years R/o Kalarpara Bhogam, P.S. Faraspal, Tahsil And District Dantewada Chhattisgarh (Driver Cum Owner)

¶13

--- Respondents

¶14

For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate

¶15

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶16

Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.23 16:40:48 +0530

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order On Board

2

21/08/2025

Heard on I.A. No.1, which is an application for condonation of delay of 96 days in filing of appeal.

¶22

On due consideration of the submission of learned counsel for respective parties and contents of application, I.A. No.1, application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay of 96 in fling of appeal is condoned.

¶23

With the consent of both the parties, case is heard finally.

¶24

Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the quantum of impugned award dated 15.07.2024, passed in Claim Case No.118 of 2023, whereby learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) allowed application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 by claimants/respondent No.1 to 3, in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.87,72,684/- and fastened liability to satisfy amount of compensation on non-applicant No.2-Insurance Company/appellant.

¶25

Motor accidental injuries resulted in death of Rajesh Netam, nonapplicant No.1/owner-cum-driver and non-applicant No.3 to be insurer of offending vehicle is not in dispute. Liability to satisfy amount of compensation fastened upon non-applicant No.2/appellant- Insurance Company is also not disputed, hence, this Court is not adverting into the factual aspects of the case as pleaded in the claim application filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 and its reply as adverted by

¶26

3

¶27

Claims Tribunal in the impugned award, however only dealing with the submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties on the challenge to the quantum of compensation made by learned counsel for respective parties.

¶28

Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in determining income of deceased as Rs.92,315/- per month (gross salary) and not the net salary as mentioned in the salary slip (Ex.A-10 and A-11). In deduction column there is also mention of deduction towards income tax, therefore, for the purpose of computing income of the deceased, income ought to have been calculated after deduction shown in salary slip, which comes to Rs.79,251/-. He next contended that age of deceased is not proved and learned Claims Tribunal has computed amount of compensation considering age of deceased as mentioned in the postmortem report by doctors conducting postmortem which is not based on scientific method.

¶29

Learned counsel for respondents/claimants would oppose the submission made by learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company and submit that law with regard to assessment of income of salaried person is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Vs. Indira Shrivastava reported in (2008) 2 SCC 763 , wherein it is held that income is to be assessed keeping in mind the gross income minus tax, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal justified in taking into consideration the gross income as mentioned in the salary slip Ex.A-10 and Ex.A-11 as Rs.92,315/- which cannot be said to be erroneous. He next contended that the ground as raised

¶30

4

¶31

that age of deceased to be not proved is not available to appellant/insurance company as appellant has not brought any evidence on record to prove age of deceased. Learned Claims Tribunal in absence of proof of age justified in determining the age of deceased based on age as mentioned in the postmortem report. Claimants have also filed cross-objection seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards future prospects and also not awarded loss of consortium to all the claimants.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused record of claim case.

¶33

First grounds raised by learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company is that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.92,315/- instead of Rs.79,215/-. To prove income of deceased, claimants have placed on record, salary slip issued by Block Education Officer, Bijapur, District – Bijapur. According to salary slip, gross salary of deceased is mentioned as Rs.92,315/-, which includes basic pay - 64,770/-, DA – 24,586/-, Tribal Allowance 500, HRA 1779, medical allowance 200 and other allowance 600 and there is deduction towards GPF/DPF of Rs.7,764/-, GIS Rs.300/- and income tax Rs.5,000/-. Except deduction towards income tax, other deduction is an investment as it will be returned back to employee or family members after retirement or death of deceased. For computing amount of compensation, gross salary – minus income tax is to be taken into consideration as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case

¶34

5

¶35

of National Insurance Company Vs. Indira Shrivastava reported in

¶36

(2008) 2 SCC 763 , has observed as under :

¶37

“ 19. The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. We may, however, hasten to add that from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted.”

¶38

In the aforementioned facts of the case, for computing total income of deceased, gross salary minus income tax is to be taken into consideration for computation of income. In case at hand, learned Claims Tribunal relying on salary slips of deceased had taken gross salary of deceased as Rs.92,315/- and annual income as Rs. 11,07,780/- for the purpose of computing compensation under the head of loss of dependency. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Indira Shrivastava (supra), gross salary of deceased has to be taken into consideration while calculating loss of dependency. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the approach adopted by learned Claims Tribunal in fixing monthly income of deceased by taking into account his gross salary. However, it failed to deduct income tax from annual income of deceased, as held in case of Indira Shrivastava (supra). Hence, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'loss of dependency' has to be recalculated by making necessary deductions towards income-tax from gross income. It is ordered accordingly.

¶39

6

¶40

Other ground raised by learned counsel for appellant, that claimants have not proved age of the deceased though he was a government servant is concerned, appellant/Insurance Company has made cursory plea of denying age of deceased to be of 49 years. Even otherwise they have not taken any step to call for the record from the government department of which the deceased was an employee to prove his age. They have not submitted any application calling any person as a witness from the department of which, deceased was employee, therefore, appellant will not be permitted to raise such a ground at this stage before Appellate Court. Therefore, second ground raised by learned counsel for appellant is not sustainable and accordingly it is repelled.

¶41

So far as the ground raised in the cross objection filed by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation is concerned, the law with regard to award of compensation, towards future prospects, is settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , wherein it is held that where deceased is in permanent employment and is in between 40 to 50 years age, there shall be addition of 30% of established income. Admittedly deceased was a government servant and he was under permanent employment as per pleadings made in the claim application and considered by the claims Tribunal, age of the deceased was 49 years, therefore, there shall be addition of 30% of the established income. It is ordered accordingly.

¶42

7

¶43

Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses and application of multiplier of 13 is not disputed by learned counsel for parties, hence, it is affirmed.

¶44

Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.96,000/- towards loss of consortium. There are three claimant. Claimant No.1 is widow of deceased and claimant No.2 & 3 are children of deceased. Award of compensation under loss of consortium was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and it is quantified as Rs.40,000/-. Further in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that children of deceased will also be entitled for loss of parental consortium of Rs.40,000/each. As claimants No.2 and 3 are children of deceased, they are also entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium.

¶45

Learned Claims Tribunal has further enhanced 20% to the amount of compensation awarded under other conventional heads, which is in consonance with the decision in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and needs no interference.

¶46

For the forgoing discussions, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation to the claimants/appellants.

¶47

This Court has assessed gross annual income of deceased as Rs.11,07,780/-. Accordingly, after addition of 30% in the assessed income of deceased, total gross annual income of deceased works out to Rs.11,07,780 + 3,32,334 = Rs. 14,40,114/-.

¶48

8

¶49

According to new tax regime for the income tax assessment year 2024-25, there is standard deduction of Rs.75,000/- for salaried person, hence, after deduction of Rs.75,000/- from the assessed income of deceased, total taxable income of deceased comes to Rs.14,40,114 – 75,000 = Rs.13,65,114/-.

¶50

As per tax slab for assessment year 2024-25 in new tax regime, income up to ₹3,00,000 is NIL. Income exceeding ₹ 3.00 Lakh up to ₹ 7 Lakh is taxable @ 5%, accordingly the tax for ₹ 4.00 Lakh would be ₹ 20,000/-. Thereafter income exceeding Rs.7.00 Lakh up to Rs.10.00 Lakh is taxable @ 10%, accordingly, the tax for Rs.7.00 Lakh up to Rs.10.00 Lakh would be Rs.30,000/-. Thereafter income exceeding Rs.10.00 Lakh up to Rs.12.00 Lakh is taxable @ 15%, accordingly, the tax for Rs.10.00 Lakh up to Rs.12.00 Lakh would be Rs.30,000/-. Thereafter income exceeding Rs.12.00 Lakh up to Rs.15.00 Lakh is taxable @ 20%, therefore, income tax payable on next Rs.1,65,114/would be Rs.33,022/-. Accordingly, total income tax payable on income of deceased comes to Rs. 1,13,022/- ( 20,000 + 30,000 + 30,000 + 33,022). On this amount 4% charge towards health and eduction cess is to be added, which comes to Rs.4,520/-. Thus net income tax which was payable on the annual income of deceased would be Rs.1,17,542/- (1,13,022/- + 4,520/-). Accordingly, it is ordered that income tax deductible from annual income of deceased would be Rs.1,17,542/- and after deduction of Rs.1,17,542/- towards income tax, net income of deceased comes to Rs.13,22,572/- (Rs.14,40,114 – 1,17,542).

¶51

9

¶52

Out of total net income of deceased i.e. Rs.13,22,572/-, one-third is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased, as deducted by the Claims Tribunal, and after deducting one- third, loss of dependency would come to Rs.8,81,715/-. Applying multiplier of 13, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be Rs.1,14,62,295/-. Besides this, claimants No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellant No.2 and 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental 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. Learned Claims Tribunal has further enhanced 20% to the amount of compensation awarded under other conventional heads, accordingly, the claimants are entitled for loss of spousal and parental consortium of Rs.48,000 x 3 =1,44,000/- and Rs.18,000/- each to towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, total amount of compensation for which now claimants are entitled, comes to Rs.1,16,42,295/-. 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 intact. Any amount disbursed to claimants pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above.

¶53

Accordingly, the appeal filed by appellant/Insurance Company is dismissed and cross-objection filed by claimants/respondent No.1 to 3 is partly allowed to the extent indicated here-in-above. Sd/-

¶54

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶55

Balram

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Anita Netam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Anita Netam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manager, United Insurance Company Vs Smt. Manju Jha

Mrs. Keja Bai Patle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Branch Manager, Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Janmati

Mahendra Sodhi Vs Midun Krishna

Sukhram Kowasi Vs Diwakar Sona

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs Daya Bai Maghvani