CHOLAMANDLAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs SMT. SEEMA DAS

1

CGHC010186502025 2026:CGHC:44625
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1188 of 2025
1 - Cholamandlam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited
Through- Its Legal Manager, Present And Correct Address- Simran
Tower, 2nd Floor, In Front Of LIC Office, Pandri, Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - Smt. Seema Das W/o Late Nishith Kumar Das Aged About 51
Years R/o House No. 1511, Ward No. 51 Near Benet Campus Village
Jora, P.S. Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Ku. Ankita Das D/o Late Nishith Kumar Das Aged About 27 Years
R/o House No. 1511, Ward No. 51 Near Benet Campus Village Jora,
P.S. Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Pramod Kumar Pandey S/o Late Shri Chintamani Pandey Aged
About 38 Years R/o Village Chuhri, P.O. Pasid, P.S. Tumgaon, Tehsil
And District- Mahasamund (C.G.)
4 - Vishwanath Sahu S/o Gopal Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o
Village Pasoud, P.S. And Tehsil Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband
(C.G.)

... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv.
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Adv.
For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : None.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
Digitally
signed by
HEERA LAL
SAHU
Date:
2026.10.16
10:49:24
+0530

2
(15.10.2026)
1. Heard on I.A. No. 03/2025, application for condonation of delay
in filing the cross objection.
2. Cross objection filed by the claimants/respondents No. 1 & 2
with a delay of 21 days.
3. Upon due consideration and for the reasons stated in the
application, I.A. No. 03/2025 is allowed. Delay of 21 days in
filing the cross objection is condoned.
4. Cross-objection is admitted for hearing.
5. With the consent of both the parties, the matter was heard
finally.
6. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellant
challenging the impugned award dated 06.01.2025, passed in
Claim Case No. H-239/2023, whereby the learned Claims
Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.48,98,072/- as
compensation for the death of Late Arpit Das (25 years old), who
died in a road accident which took place on 21.09.2023.
7. Cross-objection/appeal has also been filed by the
claimants/respondents No. 1 & 2 for enhancement of the
compensation.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company first
submits that since the deceased was not a regular employee of
the company, the monthly salary to be considered should be the
net amount of 28,360 (after deductions) rather than the gross ₹
salary of 31,667. The second contention is that the vehicle was
₹
falsely implicated in the accident, as the incident occurred on
the intervening night of September 21–22, 2023, while the FIR
was filed on October 2, 2023, after a delay of 10 days. Lastly,
counsel contends that being a salaried person, statutory income
tax should have been deducted from the deceased's income, but

3
the claims tribunal failed to do so. Therefore, the appeal is liable
to be allowed, and the impugned award should be suitably
modified.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
claimants/respondents No. 1 & 2 opposes the same.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and went
through the records with utmost circumspection.
11. So far as the first contention of learned counsel for the
appellant/insurance company is concerned, Rupesh Jha (AW-
3), a witness for the claimant, testified that he has been
employed with Unison Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
(headquartered in Ahmedabad, Gujarat) since November 3,
2020, initially as an Area Sales Manager, and currently serving
as a Regional Manager for the Chhattisgarh-Vidarbha region. He
further stated that the deceased, Arpit Das, was employed by
the company as a Sales Executive in the Chhattisgarh branch,
effective from August 16, 2023; an appointment letter (Exhibit
A-20) was issued by the company in this regard. At the time of
his appointment, the deceased’s gross monthly salary was
31,667, and his net monthly salary, after deductions, was
₹
₹ 28,360 (as per the salary slip, Exhibit A-21). The Tribunal’s
assessment of the deceased’s monthly salary at 31,667 (based
₹
on Exhibit A-21) is appropriate; therefore, the argument raised
by the company is rejected.
12. Regarding the second contention raised by the
appellant/insurance company, it is evident that the FIR was
registered following a marg inquiry (an inquest/preliminary
police inquiry). Given that the date of the deceased's death and
the date of the marg inquiry are the same, September 22, 2023,
the subsequent registration of the FIR after completing the
inquiry cannot be deemed an undue delay. Furthermore, the
charge sheet has been filed specifically against the offending
vehicle, and no evidence has been presented to rebut it. Neither
the driver, the owner, nor the insurance company of the

4
offending vehicle has produced any material or evidence to
counter the case submitted by the claimants. Consequently,
this argument by the insurance company is also rejected.
13. Addressing the last contention raised regarding the statutory
tax deduction, it is pertinent to note that the claimants have
themselves filed a cross-appeal seeking enhancement of the
compensation amount, which is examined herein below:
Cross Appeal/objection
14. The contention of the learned counsel for
claimants/respondents No. 1 and 2 is that since the deceased
was a salaried employee, the addition for future prospects ought
to be assessed at 50% rather than 40%. Furthermore, he
contends that the compensation awarded under other heads is
insufficient and ought to be increased. Consequently, the
compensation is liable to be enhanced suitably.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for insurance company
opposes the same and submits that the compensation is on the
higher side and needs to be reduced suitably.
16. Regarding the addition for future prospects, since the deceased
had been with the company for only one month, was still on
probation, and was not a permanent employee, the Tribunal's
assessment of 40% for future prospects is appropriate and
warrants no interference. Consequently, this argument raised
by counsel for the claimants is rejected.
17. Thus, taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 31,667/-
(as per Ex.A-21), i.e. Rs. 3,80,004/- per annum. The deceased
was salaried person, but he was not in permanent job so
considering the age of the deceased i.e. 25 years as per
National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the future prospects would be
40%. After adding 40% future prospects i.e. Rs. 1,52,002/- the
annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 5,32,006/-
(3,80,004+1,52,002).
18. From the annual income of the deceased, there will be statutory

5
deduction towards income tax. The income tax slab for the
financial year 2023-2024 was as follows:
Income Tax
Income Tax
Taxable Income Total Tax
Slabs in the FY
Rates
2023-2024
Upto 2.5 lakh nill Rs. 2,50,000/- nill
2,50,001 to 5
5% Rs. 2,50,000/- Rs. 12,500/-
lakh
5,00,001 to 10
20% Rs. 32,006/- Rs. 6,401/-
lakh
Total Rs. 5,32,006/- Rs. 18,901/-
Education Cess 4% of total
Rs. 18,901/- Rs. 756/-
tax
Total Tax Rs. 19,657/-
19. In view of the above, after deduction of income tax, the annual
income comes to Rs.5,12,349/- (5,32,006-19,657).
20. Accordingly, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of
the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of
Pranay Sethi (supra), Sarla Verma (supra) and Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram &
1
Ors , this Court is computing the compensation as below:-
Sr.
Heads Compensation awarded by this
No.
Court
1 Income Rs. 31,667 x 12 = 3,80,004/-
2. Future prospect (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 1,52,002) =
5,32,006/-
3. Income Tax deduction Rs. 5,32,006-19,657 = 5,12,349/-
4. Deduction towards
(-) 1/2 (i.e. 2,56,174) = 2,56,174/-
personal expenses
5. Multiplier (x) 18 = 46,11,132/-
6. Other conventional
Rs. 1,32,000/-
heads
[18,000+18,000+(48000x2)]
Total Rs. 47,43,132/-
21. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of
1 (2018) 18 SCC 130

6
Rs.47,43,132/- instead of Rs.48,98,072/- as awarded by the
Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned award stands
modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall
remain intact.
22. In the result, the appeal of the appellant/insurance company is
partly allowed . So far as the cross-appeal is concerned, it is
dismissed , and the impugned award is modified to the extent
indicated herein-above.
23. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing
“the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award
made by the concerned Tribunal. The said communication be
made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal
workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal
Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
H.L. Sahu