Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 27397
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Shubhmitra Krishnan – Appellant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Respondent
MAC No. 1704 of 2019|MAC No. 1371 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Praveen Dhurandhar
For the Respondents: Sudhir Agrawal, Yash Tripathi, Shivang Dubey
Allowances like transport, mobile, and internet must be included in the deceased's income for compensation calculation, and a 50% future prospect addition is valid for employees under 40 unless evidence proves otherwise.
Headnote:(A) Motor Accident Claims - Computation of Income - Inclusion of Allowances - Allowances such as transport, mobile, and internet allowances ought to be added to the basic salary to arrive at the total income for calculating dependency. (Para 9, 10)
(B) Future Prospects - Permanent Employment - In the absence of evidence to the contrary, an addition of 50% towards future prospects is permissible for employees below 40 years of age. (Para 6, 7)
Issues: Whether the allowances should be included in the income of the deceased and whether the addition for future prospects should be reduced.
Order on Board
1. Since both these appeals are arising out of common impugned order, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment.
2. The claimants as well as the insurance company both have preferred these two appeals under Section under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) against the impugned award dated 28.02.2019 in Claim Case No. 153/2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar Place Jagdalpur (for brevity “MACT”). Claimants in their appeal i.e. MAC No. 1704/2019 are seeking enhancement of award and whereas the insurance company in its appeal i.e. MAC No. 1371/2019 is seeking reduction in the amount of award granted by the MACT.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimants submits that the Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.26,800/- after deducting the mobile allowance of Rs.700/-, internet allowance of Rs.500/- and travelling allowance of Rs.3,200/-. It is submitted that the aforesaid allowances, totaling Rs.4,400/-, ought to have been included while computing the income of the deceased. Thus, the monthly income ought to have been assessed at Rs.31,200/- (Rs.26,800/- + Rs.4,400/-), in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meenakshi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 12024 SCC OnLine SC 1872 He would further submit that the compensation awarded under the other conventional heads is also liable to be enhanced in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the claimants deserves to be allowed and the compensation amount deserves to be enhanced suitably.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding 50% towards future prospects, whereas, in the facts of the present case, the addition towards future prospects ought to have been 40%, as the deceased was not a permanent employee. It is further submitted that the project allowance ought to have been deducted while computing the income of the deceased for the purpose of determination of compensation. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be suitably modified by making the aforesaid deductions, and the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company deserves to be allowed to that extent.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection.
6. So far as the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is concerned, the contention of the Insurance Company that, since the deceased was not a permanent employee, he was not entitled to future prospects to the extent of 50%, cannot be accepted. No evidence has been brought on record by the Insurance Company in support of its contention regarding the grant of 50% towards future prospects. Though Y. Bhargava Ram (AW-4), an officer of Sainoklsi Technologies Pvt. Ltd., has been examined, no question was put to him in cross-examination to assail that the deceased was not a permanent employee and, therefore, was not entitled to future prospects to the extent of 50%.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi 2(2017)16 SCC 680 has held that, where the deceased was in permanent employment and below the age of 40 years, an addition of 50% towards future prospects is to be made. In the present case, in the absence of any evidence produced by the Insurance Company to establish that the deceased was not in permanent employment or was not entitled to increments, the Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded 50% towards future prospects. Accordingly, the contention raised by the Insurance Company seeking reduction of future prospects from 50% is liable to be rejected, and the finding of the Claims Tribunal awarding 50% towards future prospects does not call for any interference.
8. So far
